#Strongwomen. "I write about the power of trying, because I want to be okay with failing. I write about generosity because I battle selfishness. I write about joy because I know sorrow. I write about faith because I almost lost mine, and I know what it is to be broken and in need of redemption. I write about gratitude because I am thankful – for all of it." Kristin Armstrong
This is a series for anyone who’s ever asked, What’s really going on in local government or why does this feel so hard to follow?
Reading my blogs takes you behind the scenes of local government, community advocacy, and the stories that don’t always make it into the minutes. It’s a mix of personal reflection, plain-English explanations, and shared learning – all with one goal in mind: to help more people feel confident, connected, and capable of being part of the change.
Whether you’re on the front line or watching from the stands, you’re welcome here. We all have a part to play.
My aim has always been to give others the confidence to ask questions, challenge what doesn’t make sense, and speak up when something’s not right. Not everyone needs to write or speak publicly. Not everyone wants to. That’s fine.
This is more like a surf club or a fire brigade. Not everyone is on the front line, but everyone has a role. It might be helping with background research, sharing minutes from a meeting, keeping an eye on council papers, or simply encouraging someone else to keep going.
This kind of community work isn’t about heroes. It’s about habits. It’s about people doing what they can, where they are, with what they’ve got.
If you’ve been watching from the sidelines and wondering how to get more involved, maybe this is your moment. If you’ve got time, skills, insight or even just interest, I’d love to hear from you.
Today I’m stepping slightly to the side, not away, to show how that issue fits into a broader pattern. Because what’s happening with Section 7.11 is not an isolated event. It is a symptom of a deeper cultural problem in how Kiama Council handles complexity, conflict and community trust.
These moments of tension, whether it is development contributions or surf club leases, often follow the same script. And the script is familiar to anyone who has studied leadership dynamics or conflict psychology.
The Gerringong Surf Life Saving Club issue in the Kiama local government area has become a textbook example of the Karpman Drama Triangle. A well-intentioned community concern has been turned into a stage production. The roles are locked in. The hero has claimed their spotlight. The victim is entrenched. And the villains? They shift by the day.
The moment someone questions the process or raises a legitimate concern, they are quickly cast in that villain role. Not because they are wrong, but because they interrupt the script. We have seen this dynamic before. And we will keep seeing it if we do not name it for what it is.
This is not about surf clubs. This is about how we lead.
At the last Kiama Council meeting, Councillor Imogen Draisma supported Motion 20.1 relating to the Gerringong Surf Life Saving Club. It was an emotionally charged moment, and like many, she likely acted with good intent.
But the motion itself was deeply complex. It involved land classification, leasing laws, native title implications and long-term planning risks, issues that most people in the Kiama local government area have not been given the time or information to fully understand.
Now, that decision has resulted in her integrity being questioned in state parliament.
This is exactly what happens when we let the Drama Triangle run the show. Someone is cast as the hero. Someone becomes the victim. And someone else gets labelled the villain, often unfairly.
It stops being about good governance. It becomes performance.
More and more, the front and centre issues in the Kiama local government area are being played out through this lens, public theatre that pulls us into binary roles and distracts us from the real work of governance. The Section 7.11 development contributions issue is another clear example. Rather than work through complexity, we are fed simplified narratives that cast people as saviours or saboteurs.
It is too easy to get caught in it. The Drama Triangle has a gravity of its own. One person steps in to save the day. Another is painted as the problem. The community becomes the audience, applauding the performance but not always understanding what is at stake backstage.
But it does not have to be this way.
What if we stepped outside the triangle? What if we paused before playing out the roles handed to us? What if we chose something different?
In the Kiama local government area, we have the opportunity to lead in a more collaborative way. To slow down. To listen. To ask better questions. And to remind ourselves that not every story needs a hero, a victim and a villain.
Sometimes it just needs a group of people willing to work together, with honesty and respect, to get to the heart of the matter.
We live in a world where most of us are juggling more than we can hold. Family, work, community, finances. In the thick of it, we trust that someone, somewhere, is keeping watch over the systems that shape our lives. We hope decisions are made fairly, money is spent wisely, and when mistakes happen, someone tells the truth.
But that trust only works when people are willing to shine a light on what is really going on.
That is what this blog is about. It is not written by a planner or a lawyer, and it is not written for them either. It is for people who care about what happens in their community, especially when public money and public trust are at stake.
The response from Council left out a key fact. A Golden Valley Draft Consent Feb 2023 recommended a $1 million developer contribution under Section 7.11.
However, a majority of councillors at the time voted to reject the application, triggering an appeal to the Land and Environment Court.
While the matter was still before the Court, Council repealed its Section 7.11 contribution plans. By the time the Court ruled, there was no valid Section 7.11 in place. Instead, a Section 7.12 contribution applied, which meant just over $30,000 was collected at subdivision.
Additional contributions, up to $350,000, may be collected from individual homeowners as they lodge development applications to build. But the community still faces a shortfall of around $650,000. And the cost burden has shifted from developer to future residents.
When this shift was reported publicly, Council issued a statement accusing the article of spreading false facts. It did not address the existence of the original $1 million contribution recommendation. And it did not explain the implications of repealing the 7.11 plan while the DA was still under appeal.
This is not about technicalities. It is about transparency.
You do not need to be an expert to understand why this matters. You only need to ask whether important information is being left out, and why.
In the next post, I will walk you through the documents and decisions so you can judge for yourself.
Disclaimer: I am not a developer, a town planner, or a property lawyer. My blog posts are written in good faith and based on publicly available documents, council records, and conversations with professionals who work in planning, development, and legal fields. Every effort is made to ensure accuracy and clarity. These posts are offered to support greater public understanding of complex issues that affect our community.
In countries like ours, it’s all too easy to push uncomfortable truths to the back of our minds. We get caught up in our daily routines and often overlook the harsh realities that persist around us. Modern slavery, labour rights abuses, and social inequities are some of the pressing issues that need our attention. I would like to invite everyone to expand our definition of sustainability to encompass not just environmental, but also social dimensions.
Why This Matters
The ACCC’s Draft Guide to Sustainability Collaboration and Australian Competition Law is a step in the right direction for environmental sustainability. However, it misses a crucial element: the social aspect. Without addressing social sustainability, we cannot hope to achieve a truly sustainable future. Social equity, labour rights, and community impact are as important as environmental outcomes.
How You Can Help
Be Slavery Free has put forward a submission recommending that the ACCC expand its definition of sustainability to include these vital social dimensions. This approach aligns with the holistic view that sustainability is interdependent across environmental, economic, and social outcomes. By broadening this definition, we can better address the comprehensive needs of our communities and ensure that Australia leads the way in inclusive sustainability practices.
Join Us in Making a Change
I am proud to sign this submission because it resonates deeply with my values of promoting social justice and comprehensive sustainability. But we need more voices to amplify this call for change. I urge you to join me in supporting this important initiative.
The protection and upliftment of local and Indigenous communities
Fair trade practices and economic inclusiveness
Top 10 Causes Australians Donate To
Note in the list below the significant discrepancy in donations between animal welfare and child welfare highlights an incongruency in our charitable priorities. While animal welfare organisations receive approximately $800 million annually, child welfare organisations receive around $500 million, a 60% difference in favour of animal welfare. This disparity calls for a closer examination of our donation patterns. It’s important to remember that both causes are crucial. The significant discrepancy in donations between animal welfare and child welfare underscores a need to expand our awareness and understanding of the interconnectedness of social and environmental sustainability. By recognising that both animal welfare and child welfare are vital components of a healthy, just society, we can better balance our support and ensure that all critical areas receive the attention and resources they need. This balanced approach will help build a more comprehensive and sustainable future for everyone.
While advocating for this broader definition of sustainability, let’s not forget the generous spirit of Australians who consistently support various causes. Here are the top 10 causes Australians donate to:
Health and Medical Research – Supporting hospitals, research institutes, and health services.
Animal Welfare – Donations to shelters, rescue operations, and wildlife conservation. Australians donate over $800 million annually to animal welfare charities.
Education – Funding scholarships, schools, and educational programmes.
Disaster Relief – Contributions to emergency responses and recovery efforts.
Social Services – Assisting community services, homelessness shelters, and mental health support.
Child Welfare – Supporting children’s hospitals, childcare services, and youth programmes. In comparison, donations to child welfare organisations amount to approximately $500 million per year. This represents a 60% difference in favour of animal welfare donations.
International Aid – Providing relief and development assistance to countries in need.
Indigenous Support – Funding programmes that promote the wellbeing and rights of Indigenous communities.
Arts and Culture – Donations to museums, galleries, and cultural institutions.
These causes highlight the diverse ways in which Australians contribute to the betterment of society. By expanding our efforts to include social sustainability in our definition of comprehensive sustainability, we can ensure our impact is even more far-reaching.
Take Action Now
Sign the submission today and help us advocate for a broader definition of sustainability that includes social dimensions. Together, we can drive meaningful change and build a more just and equitable future for all.
Feel free to share this blog post and encourage others to join the cause. Let’s make a difference together!
In this blog post the SynergyScape Solutions team explore the importance of Communities of Practice and the cultural, systemic, and intrinsic/extrinsic value conflicts that challenge their adoption, while posing critical questions and offering solutions for fostering a collaborative mindset. It concludes with an invitation for readers to share their experiences with successful CoPs.
In a world that often feels increasingly fragmented, the concept of Communities of Practice (CoPs) offers a guiding light. At their core, CoPs are about people coming together, united by a shared passion or interest, to learn, innovate, and drive change. The logic here is simple: when we collaborate, we achieve better outcomes for the greater good. Yet, despite the clear benefits, we struggle to adopt this “we” mindset. Why is that?
One might argue that our struggle with communal thinking stems from cultural roots. Australian society, like many others influenced by Western ideologies, has long championed individualism. From the iconic “Aussie battler” to the self-made entrepreneur, our narratives glorify the lone hero. This cultural backdrop can make the shift to collective thinking challenging, even when we intellectually understand its advantages.
Capitalism, with its intrinsic competitive drive, further complicates this transition. The market-driven mentality promotes personal gain over collective welfare, often framing collaboration as a strategic move rather than a fundamental value. In such an environment, intrinsic values—like altruism, empathy, and community spirit—can be overshadowed by extrinsic values such as wealth, status, and power. This dichotomy creates tension, as those driven by intrinsic motivations seek to foster collaboration, while those guided by extrinsic values may view such efforts with scepticism.
Then there’s the zeitgeist—the spirit of our times. We live in an era of rapid change and unprecedented connectivity, yet we are paradoxically more isolated. The digital age, while offering tools for connection, also perpetuates superficial interactions over meaningful engagements. The fast-paced, transactional nature of online communications can undermine the deep, sustained efforts required to build and maintain CoPs.
However, it’s not all doom and gloom. There are shining examples of CoPs thriving across various sectors, proving that with the right mindset and structures, collective efforts can flourish. Consider the technology sector, where open-source communities bring together developers from around the world to create, refine, and innovate software solutions. Or look at the healthcare industry, where professionals collaborate through CoPs to share best practices and improve patient care. These examples underscore that when we embrace a “we” mindset, we can overcome the cultural and systemic barriers that hinder collaboration.
But how do we cultivate this mindset more broadly? It starts with recognising and valuing the power of collaboration.
We need to shift our narratives to celebrate collective achievements and the unsung heroes who drive them. Education systems can play a crucial role by fostering critical and creative thinking, teaching young people the importance of empathy, and encouraging them to work together to solve problems.
Moreover, we must address the systemic issues that prioritise individual success over collective welfare. This might mean rethinking policies and incentives to reward collaboration and shared achievements. It also involves creating environments—both physical and digital—that facilitate sustained, meaningful interactions.
Ultimately, the success of Communities of Practice hinges on our ability to align our intrinsic values with our actions. It’s about recognising that true success is not measured by personal gain but by the positive impact we have on those around us. By fostering a culture that values collaboration, we can build resilient, innovative communities capable of tackling the complex challenges of our time.
So, as we ponder the question of why we struggle with communal thinking, let’s also consider how we can change this narrative. Let’s challenge the cultural and systemic norms that divide us and embrace the logic of community. After all, when we come together with a “we” mindset, we unlock our collective potential and create a better future for all.
If you are part of a successful Community of Practice or know of one, I would love to hear from you. Your insights and experiences are invaluable as we work to understand and spread the “secret sauce” of effective collaboration.
Please contact me at E: lynnestrong@synergyscape.com.au
In today’s world, the definition of success often revolves around wealth, status, and power. Yet, as the message on this wall poignantly states, what our planet desperately needs are more peacemakers, healers, restorers, storytellers, and lovers of all kinds.
As I reflect on my journey and the work I’ve been privileged to be part of, it becomes increasingly clear that our true impact lies not in the titles we hold but in the difference we make in the lives of others. Through my efforts to support communities and schools, I have seen firsthand the transformative power of young people navigating the world with confidence, appreciating different perspectives, and taking meaningful action on issues that matter to them.
In a world rife with conflict and division, the role of a peacemaker is more crucial than ever. It’s about fostering dialogue, understanding, and mutual respect. Through initiatives that bring people together and encourage open communication, we can build a more harmonious society. This involves creating spaces where diverse voices can be heard and valued, promoting a culture of empathy and collaboration.
Our society needs healers – not just in the medical sense but in every facet of life. This includes emotional, psychological, and social healing. By supporting young people in schools to build their emotional intelligence and resilience, we lay the foundation for a more compassionate future. Initiatives that promote mental well-being and provide support for those in distress are essential in creating a caring and inclusive community.
Stories are powerful. They shape our understanding of the world, inspire action, and connect us to our shared humanity. Through writing opinion pieces for the local paper and blog posts on social justice issues, I aim to highlight the stories that matter, especially those that often go unheard. It’s about changing the narrative and reinforcing positive perceptions, particularly in sectors like agriculture. By sharing the successes and challenges of our community efforts, we can inspire others to join in and make a difference.
A shining example of this approach is the Young Environmental Champions program, which recently won the Banksia Award for Impact and Communication. This program has been instrumental in raising young people’s confidence in their ability to drive real change in their communities. By empowering them with the knowledge and skills to tackle environmental issues, we have seen these young champions take bold steps in advocacy, project implementation, and community engagement. Their success is a testament to the power of nurturing young leaders who are passionate about making a difference.
Finally, the idea of being lovers of all kinds – lovers of people, of nature, of truth – speaks to a profound truth. It’s a call to infuse our actions with empathy, compassion, and a deep commitment to justice. Supporting communities to work together, based on the success of my work with schools, underscores the importance of collective action and solidarity. By empowering young people to take action on issues that matter to them, we foster a culture of active citizenship and positive change.
Redefining success to include the roles of healers, peacemakers, restorers, and storytellers is not just idealistic – it’s essential. As we continue our journey, let us commit to these roles with vigour and dedication, knowing that the true measure of our success lies in the lives we touch and the positive change we bring about.
Its very windy at my place and has been for 48 hours. As often happens here in paradise that means no power, no water and no coffee 😢
All day yesterday my power supplier told me the power would be on in 3 hours This happened 4 times The 5th time they told me it would be 18 hours Keep your fingers crossed for me and my 37 neighbours. I am cold, hungry and caffeine deprived
My first world problems have given me plenty of time to catch up on world news It’s depressing stuff ( world news that is) This thought provoking article in The Conversation today “Scholars like Jonathan Turley argue, “We are living through an age of rage. It is not our first, but it may be the most dangerous such period in our history.” got my thinking about the importance and legacy of the programs I helped design and deliver that focus on empowering young people.
These programs aim to help them investigate the world, appreciate different perspectives, communicate confidently in an informed and respectful way, and take action on issues that matter to them and their communities. Watching young people grow into thoughtful, engaged, and compassionate individuals is immensely rewarding. These programs not only equip them with critical and creative thinking skills but also foster a sense of responsibility and active citizenship.
The use of toxic language in public discourse is more than just a matter of poor etiquette; it has real and dangerous consequences. As highlighted in a recent discussion on The Conversation about the harmful effects of such language, there is a clear link between the words we use and the actions they inspire. When public figures resort to derogatory, inflammatory, and divisive language, it not only degrades the quality of our conversations but can also incite violence and deepen societal rifts.
The Dangers of Toxic Language
Toxic language fosters an environment of hostility and mistrust. It polarizes communities by framing disagreements as personal attacks rather than opportunities for constructive dialogue. This type of rhetoric can escalate tensions and lead to real-world consequences, including violence, as people feel emboldened to act on the inflammatory messages they hear from leaders and influencers.
Moreover, toxic language undermines the fundamental principles of democracy. A healthy democratic society relies on respectful and open discourse, where differing viewpoints can be debated without fear of retribution or degradation. When public figures use toxic language, it sends a message that bullying and aggression are acceptable means of achieving one’s goals, thereby eroding the very fabric of democratic engagement.
Encouraging Critical and Creative Thinking in Young People
In this context, it becomes all the more crucial to encourage young people to be critical and creative thinkers.
Here’s why:
Building Resilience Against Manipulation: Critical thinking skills help young people analyse and evaluate information more effectively. By teaching them to question sources, check facts, and understand different perspectives, we empower them to resist manipulation by toxic rhetoric.
Fostering Empathy and Understanding: Encouraging creative thinking promotes empathy and open-mindedness. Creative individuals are often better at seeing things from multiple perspectives and finding common ground, which is essential in countering divisive language.
Promoting Constructive Dialogue: When young people are taught to think critically and creatively, they are better equipped to engage in constructive dialogue. They learn to express their ideas clearly and respectfully, listen to others, and collaborate on solutions to common problems.
Preparing Future Leaders: Today’s young people are tomorrow’s leaders. By nurturing their ability to think independently and creatively, we are preparing them to lead with integrity, respect, and a commitment to fostering inclusive and healthy discourse.
Strengthening Democracy: A democracy thrives on the active participation of well-informed and thoughtful citizens. By encouraging young people to develop these skills, we contribute to a more robust and resilient democratic society.
I am incredibly proud of the programs I have helped design and deliver that focus on empowering young people. These programs aim to help them investigate the world, appreciate different perspectives, communicate confidently in an informed and respectful way, and take action on issues that matter to them and their communities. Watching young people grow into thoughtful, engaged, and compassionate individuals is immensely rewarding. These programs not only equip them with critical and creative thinking skills but also foster a sense of responsibility and active citizenship.
The impact of toxic language in public discourse is profound and far-reaching. It is imperative that we address and counteract this trend by fostering a culture of respect and critical engagement. Encouraging young people to be critical and creative thinkers is a vital part of this effort. By equipping them with the tools to analyse, empathize, and engage constructively, we can help build a society where respectful and meaningful dialogue prevails over divisive and harmful rhetoric.
We can all commit to nurturing these values in our young people, ensuring that they are prepared to lead with wisdom and compassion
As you may or may not know, I write opinion pieces for our local paper, focusing on social justice issues. Recently, I’ve been particularly concerned about a troubling trend in our political landscape: the rise of sociopaths as politicians, and the alarming number of people who believe these people have their best interests at heart.
Politics has always been a complex and challenging field, but in recent years, we’ve seen a shift that should concern us all. Sociopaths—people who lack empathy and moral responsibility—are increasingly finding their way into positions of power. They are often charismatic, manipulative, and skilled at presenting themselves as the champions of the people. But beneath this façade lies a darker reality.
Sociopaths are adept at using charm and manipulation to gain trust and influence. They tell us what we want to hear, promising solutions to our most pressing problems. But these promises are often empty, designed to serve their own interests rather than the community’s.
True leadership requires empathy—the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. Unfortunately, sociopaths are incapable of genuine empathy. Their decisions are calculated and self-serving, leading to policies that may benefit a few while harming many.
One of the most concerning traits of sociopaths in power is their resistance to accountability. They deflect criticism, avoid transparency, and often resort to gaslighting—making others doubt their own perceptions of reality.
In times of crisis or uncertainty, people naturally gravitate towards those who offer clear, decisive solutions. Sociopaths exploit this by presenting themselves as strong leaders who can cut through the noise and get things done.
Sociopaths are often very charismatic, exuding confidence and charm. This can be incredibly appealing, especially in a political climate where we crave stability and certainty.
The spread of misinformation and biased media coverage can distort our perceptions of political candidates. Sociopaths often leverage these platforms to amplify their messages and discredit their opponents.
What Can We Do?
We can educate ourselves and others
Awareness is the first step. We need to educate ourselves about the traits and tactics of sociopathic individuals. By recognizing the signs, we can make more informed decisions about who we support.
We can promote empathy and integrity
As a community, we must prioritise empathy and integrity in our leaders. Celebrate and support candidates who demonstrate these values, and hold those who do not accountable.
We can encourage active participation
Democracy thrives on active participation. Attend community meetings halls, engage in conversations, and ask tough questions. Hold your representatives accountable and demand transparency.
We can build support networks
Create and participate in community groups that advocate for ethical behaviour in politics. These networks can provide a collective voice and a platform for calling out unethical actions.
The rise of sociopaths in politics is a concerning trend, but it’s not insurmountable. By staying informed, promoting ethical leadership, and actively participating in our democratic processes, we can reclaim our political landscape. It’s up to us to ensure that our leaders truly have our best interests at heart.
Thank you for reading, and for being a part of this journey towards a more just and empathetic society. Together we can continue to strive for the change we wish to see in the world.
In many communities, leadership plays a critical role in guiding progress and addressing local concerns. However, there are times when leadership may exhibit wavering faith in its ability and show no genuine interest in engaging with the grassroots.
This blog has been inspired by my recent experience to trying to work with my local government and being at loss to understand why it finds it so hard to responsive to a community that wants to be seen, heard and valued. I have found encountering individuals or organisations that prioritise procedural adherence, risk aversion, and hierarchical decision-making very challenging Especially confusing when it has instigated a community engagement strategy yet its leadership role models behaviours like bureaucratic rigidity, unresponsiveness, or noncommittal attitudes—traits I find particularly challenging to navigate. See previous blog post here
Despite the introduction of a community engagement strategy, it often feels like there is no genuine desire to engage with the community. The leadership seems to lack confidence in their ability to lead and appears detached from the grassroots. This experience has led me to explore why such a strategy would be instigated without true commitment and what the grassroots can do to address this issue.
To help me understanding these challenges I asked our resident expert in all things human behaviour to help me understand these challenges and hopefully successfully navigate them.
The following educational content has been provided by Alex Reed
In many communities, leadership plays a critical role in guiding progress and addressing local concerns. However, there are times when leadership may exhibit wavering faith in its ability and show no genuine interest in engaging with the grassroots. This can manifest in various ways:
Lack of Confidence: Leadership appears hesitant and indecisive, avoiding clear commitments and decisive actions.
Detachment: There is minimal effort to understand or address the concerns of the grassroots community.
Superficial Engagement: Interactions with the community are more about going through the motions than genuinely listening and responding to feedback.
These issues can lead to an erosion of trust and a decrease in community morale. But all is not lost. The grassroots have the power to influence change and hold leadership accountable. Here are some strategies to consider:
Strategies for Grassroots Engagement
Organise and Unite
Form Coalitions: Bring together like-minded community members to form a unified group. Strength in numbers can amplify your voice and influence.
Identify Leaders: Elect or appoint community leaders who can represent the group and communicate effectively with leadership.
Document and Communicate Issues
Keep Detailed Records: Document all interactions with leadership, including meetings, emails, and responses. This helps in building a case for your concerns.
Share Your Story: Use social media, community forums, and local media to share documented issues and raise awareness. A well-informed community is a powerful community.
Engage in Constructive Dialogue
Request Meetings: Formally request meetings with leadership to discuss specific concerns. Prepare an agenda and stick to the points.
Be Clear and Concise: Present your issues clearly and concisely, backed by documented evidence and data.
Leverage Data
Conduct Surveys: Gather data from the community to highlight key concerns and priorities. Use this data to make a compelling case to leadership.
Present Findings: Use data visualisations and reports to present your findings in a clear and impactful way.
Build Alliances with Other Critical Partners
Local Businesses: Partner with local businesses that have a stake in the community’s well-being.
Educational Institutions: Engage with schools and universities for support and resources.
Health and Safety Organizations: Collaborate with organizations focused on health, safety, and environmental sustainability.
Mobilise the Community
Petitions and Protests: Organise petitions to gather signatures and demonstrate widespread support for your cause. Peaceful protests can also raise visibility.
Attend Public Meetings: Show up in numbers to public meetings and use public comment periods to voice concerns directly to leadership.
Seek Support from Higher Authorities
Government Representatives: Contact local government representatives, such as MPs or state legislators, for support and intervention.
Ombudsman and Watchdog Organisations: File formal complaints with oversight bodies that can investigate and hold leadership accountable.
Empowering the Community
It’s essential to remember that change often starts from the ground up. While leadership may appear uncertain and detached, the grassroots can drive meaningful change through organisation, clear communication, and persistent advocacy. Here are a few final tips to keep in mind:
Stay Informed: Keep up with local news and developments within your community. Knowledge is power.
Be Persistent: Change doesn’t happen overnight. Stay committed to your cause and continue to push for action.
Support Each Other: Foster a supportive community where members encourage and assist one another. Collective strength is vital.
By taking these steps, the grassroots can transform uncertainty and detachment into opportunities for greater community involvement and stronger, more responsive leadership. Remember, the power to shape the future of your community lies in your hands.
Join the Conversation
Have you experienced similar challenges with leadership in your community? Share your stories and strategies in the comments below. Let’s learn from each other and continue to build stronger, more resilient communities together.
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.
