Tag Archives: communication

Learn About Aboriginal Australia – Ask an Aboriginal Person!

In the spirit of National Reconciliation Week (27 May to 3 June) I’m inviting anyone and everyone who would like to learn more about Aboriginal peoples to go ahead and ask – me!

I’m not claiming to be an expert, but as an Aboriginal person with a diverse range of knowledge and experiences, I’m more than willing to share what I know with all who would like to know more. And if there’s anything I can’t answer (and I’m sure there will be) I’ll do my best to find someone who can.

I see this as an opportunity to promote Reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples through sharing knowledge, promoting understanding, and removing fears. Reconciliation begins by coming together at the same table and engaging in open discussion.

Please post any questions in the comments section below – I will respond to each as quickly and best as I’m able!

Happy National Reconciliation Week!

Indigenous Issues: Are We Targeting the Right People?

interracial_hands1Most of us have heard that wonderful saying about stepping back and taking a look a the big picture, however when we’re so deeply involved in something, we often don’t get the insight, much less the opportunity to do so. Since moving abroad I haven’t been as actively involved in Indigenous issues as I have been in the past. While not my ideal situation, it has given me the opportunity to be more of an ‘observer’ and examine not just what other people are doing, but also reflect on what I have done, from a more objective perspective. When I look at the efforts I and so many others have put into pursuing issues relevant to their peoples, I see the same issues, the same arguments, the same discussions happening over and over again.

Why? Why is it that we keep saying the same things, but little to nothing changes?

Lately, I’ve been thinking: maybe it’s because we’re taking our message to the wrong people.

In my experience, when it comes to advocating for Indigenous issues there are three main groups we take our message to: Indigenous peoples, the Government, and representative bodies (which includes professional associations, educational institutions, and other, usually not-for-profit organisations, that are themselves representative of, or advocates for, subsets of broader society). The rationale for this is simple. We talk to our own people to identify issues, educate on what we’re planning to do about them, and seek support for our cause. We talk to Government because they are the law- and policy makers of the land, and have the ability to affect change. We talk to other representative bodies because they too have the ability to facilitate change, both directly (through their policies and programs) and indirectly (through their advocacy efforts).

It seems that we have the key players identified and have been working with them for far greater than the twenty years I’ve been involved. It would seem reasonable to expect that the situation for Indigenous peoples should be far better than what it is, right?

Here’s the problem.

Talking with Indigenous peoples about Indigenous issues is a classic case of, “preaching to the converted”. Indigenous peoples know what the issues are, they know what needs to be done to change the situation, and in many cases they’ve been consulted about it to the point where they are tired of repeating themselves. We must keep Indigenous peoples the main part of the conversation, however we need to change the topic of conversation from, “what is the problem?” to “what are we doing to make things better?”

Talking to Government is always going to be crucial because they are the ones who can make laws, and develop policies and programs, that have the ability to create real change. The issue with Government is that it tends to support the views of those that keep them in power. There are two basic groups that Government draws it support from: its constituents, or those who vote for them, and its endorsers, or those who provide the most tangible (mostly financial) support to them. Indigenous peoples are often a severely under-represented segment of both of these groups, and so have a relatively low-level of influence. This could be indicative of why many Governments outwardly appear to support the cause of Indigenous peoples, and yet only actively engage at a minimal level to affect change.

It’s a similar situation when talking with other groups and organisations who have the ability to affect change for Indigenous peoples, however are not solely dedicated to Indigenous issues. The people who direct and manage these organisations are usually serving two masters. On one side, the Government, who provides the underlying laws and, in many cases, funding, on which these organisations are based. On the other are their own constituents: their members and/or the population they either represent or provide services too. Again, Indigenous peoples, through sheer lack of numbers, or often under-represented in these groups, and so their voice is relatively small. Ironically, many of these organisations are very ‘pro-Indigenous’, and could be doing a lot to help Indigenous peoples change their situation. Many boards and managers even “want to do more” to help Indigenous peoples, but claim their hands are tied because their views are not supported by their members, their constituents, and/or the Government of the day.

Obviously we don’t want to exclude any of these groups from dealing with Indigenous issues because they all have critical roles to play. yet we cannot go on rehashing the same rhetoric with the same people only to get the same results. We need to start engaging people who have the power to influence Governments and organisations who can affect change.

We need to start targeting the non-Indigenous population in order to address Indigenous issues.

In most countries where there is inequity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples, non-Indigenous peoples represent the overwhelming majority of the population. While we like to think that the basis of our societies are morals, ethics, and social justice, the fact is that our lives are directed by one simple, time-tested rule: majority rules. It is also a fact that Indigenous peoples are unlikely to ever regain majority status in countries where the population is made up of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. If we’re going to see change, real change, we need to be the majority, and our only hope of achieving that is if we have non-Indigenous peoples on our side.

This is not just a matter of bringing Indigenous issues to the attention of non-Indigenous peoples. In fact, in the age of digital and social media, we could argue that today’s society is the most informed of any previous. Many non-Indigenous people are supportive of Indigenous peoples and addressing Indigenous issues, but this support is passive. If we’re going to garner support of non-Indigenous people to address Indigenous issues, we have to make those issues important to them. It has to become not just something they feel, but something they believe. Something they want. When it becomes important to them, it will become important to those that represent them, namely Governments and other key stakeholders. Remember: the majority have to ability to keep those people in power. Or take that power away.

Changing the lives of Indigenous peoples is not just a numbers game; there are many things that need to change in order for us to see real equity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. Many Indigenous – and to be fair many non-Indigenous – peoples have been trying to create change for many years. However, they still represent only a minority of society, and society favours the majority. If we’re going to see real change, we need non-Indigenous peoples to want to improve the lives of Indigenous peoples. As we move into 2017, maybe those of us involved in advocating for Indigenous issues need to rethink our target audience?

Why Texting is the Worst Form of Communication

couple textingI know you’ve heard it all before: texting is impersonal, it’s antisocial, and it’s ruined our ability to communicate with each other. Yet we all do it. Why? Because it’s also easy, convenient, and often timely. So why would I call texting the worst form of communication? The answer lies not so much in texting itself, so much as how we are using it to communicate.

When we use it as a messaging system to convey mundane, day-to-day information like, “I’ll be finished at 6:30pm”, “can you get milk on your way home?”, “you have a doctor’s appointment at …”, it can actually be very effective. It’s when we try to expand this from an expression of facts or data to something more abstract – for example, thoughts and feelings – that the message tends to get lost amongst the text. As I see it, there’s three main limitations that texting has over other forms of communication that often causes it to fail.

1. Communication is much more than words

You’ve probably come across the idea that over 90% of communication is non-verbal. While many linguists and sociologists dispute this figure and the ability to actually quantify the contribution of verbal and non-verbal components when communicating, it is generally agreed that effective communication relies significantly on vocal intonation and body language. In other words, how we represent ourselves physically, and how we sound, puts what we have to say – the actual words – into a certain context that the words alone cannot achieve.

Consider this snippet from a text conversation that perhaps all of us are familiar with:

Person A: Are you ok?

Person B: I’m fine.

What was your gut reaction to this? Did you accept Person B’s answer as literal? Did you find it dismissive or evasive? Or did it send a chill down your spine thinking they are anything BUT fine?

The fact is, we cannot know for sure whether Person B really is fine, or whether they are just saying that to avoid (or encourage) further discussion, or whether they are being sarcastic or passive-aggressive, because we have no other information – a look, a tone of voice, a body position – to help us put this statement into context. Person A then has two choices: they can either request more information, or they can interpret the meaning Person B intended.

Many of us don’t make the former choice, because we feel there’s an expectation (either our own, or from the other person) that we understand what is being said to us, so we come up with our own interpretation. The problem is our ability to make that interpretation is not only influenced by the person communicating with us – not just the words they use but our connection to and understanding of them – but also by a whole myriad of internal and external factors affecting our cognitive and emotional state at the time. Consider for a moment how you might interpret Person B’s response if you felt happy, worried, angry, or confused. How does it influence what you’re hearing them say?

And this is only from what appears to be a simple, everyday exchange between two people. Imagine how it is once the content becomes more complicated…

2. We are always communicating, even when we aren’t.

This is another way of expressing a fundamental principle of Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP): you cannot not communicate. That is, even if you are not saying something, you are still communicating with someone through your actions. Consider as an example someone listening to you speak: are they leaning forward, focussed on you? Are they leaning back, arms crossed? Are they turned away from you or focused on something else? In each instance, although that person isn’t saying anything, they are still sending you a message.

When you can see someone these non-verbal interactions are generally easier to interpret. When texting, it’s almost impossible. Imagine you are texting back and forth with someone and they suddenly stop responding. You cannot know why they stopped responding until you get some sort of indication from that person. However, as we cannot not communicate, no response can be interpreted as a response in itself. In fact, the longer the ‘silence’ goes on, the more we try to interpret that silence. Did they get interrupted? Did the device they’re using suddenly stop working? Did they get offended by what you said or just lose interest in the conversation? Did they even get your last message? Again, your interpretation of what has happened will be very dependent on the internal and external influences on your own cognitive and emotional state at the time, including the context and perceived importance of the conversation you were having.

3. We have developed an expectation of instant gratification

There was once a time, not too long ago, when we were not always instantly accessible. If you wanted to speak with someone, you either had to know where they were and go to them in person, or you had to call them on the phone and hope they were able (or wanted) to answer, or you had to write them a letter and wait for them to receive it and respond. And as a society, we were quite accepting of that. We appreciated that being able to communicate required timing, effort, and in many cases, patience.

Today, we are all expected to be instantaneously available on demand, and texting is one of the primary causes of this. While we recognise that everyone has their own lives and responsibilities, and therefore may not be available to meet in person or take a phone call, texting is believed to be so unobtrusive that any of us should be able to do it at any time. That’s a problem in two ways.

The first relates back to our point about not being able to not communicate. When we text, we expect a timely, if not instant response. When we don’t get one, the scenario discussed in the second point above plays out.

But there’s also the responder to consider. Receiving a text message is often welcomed, however it can also be invasive. What if you’re at work, or at a family event, or a romantic dinner with your partner and you receive a text; do you answer it? That’s a hard question to answer: if you don’t, how’s the person who sent it going to react? If you do, how’s the person you’re with going to react? Seems like a no one situation, and in many instances, it can be. Either way you are sending a message to both people, and that not be the message you want to convey.

This is not to say we shouldn’t use texting as a means of communicating, in fact it can be a very valuable way of staying in touch with people or conveying important information. However, like any form of communication, texting is only useful if you consider its limitations, and work around those limitations.

Maybe the most effective text you can send someone is, “Hi. Can we get together for a chat?”

Words vs. Actions: Which is Greatest?

post1

When was the last time you heard someone say, “actions speak louder than words?” How about, “the pen is mightier than the sword?” Words and actions have been stuck in an endless grudge-match since both coexisted. Both have their merits and pitfalls, their strengths and weaknesses. Yet does one have an advantage over the other? Are words in fact stronger than actions? Or will actions always win out over words?

There’s no question that words can be very powerful, a topic I’ve touched on before. We’ve all felt their power at one time or another in our lives: “you’ve passed”, “you’ve failed”, “you’ve got the job”, “we’ve given the job to someone else”, “I love you”, “I hate you”, “I’m so proud of you”, “I’m so disappointed in you” are simple examples of phrases that have most likely had a profound effect on you when you’ve heard them. Even “yes” and “no” can be powerful within certain contexts; just think about the impact either word can have in answer to the question, “will you marry me?”

Words have proven their power through the evolution of language and communication. It’s important to realise that our use of words is not only for pragmatic reasons. Consider the difference between reading a book in order to obtain knowledge and information, and reading one purely for pleasure and enjoyment. Consider why we read poetry, or listen to songs. Greeting card companies exist because of the power of words. Words influence us. They are powerful enough to alter our thoughts and our emotions. If they can alter our thoughts and emotions, then they can also influence our actions and behaviour. If our can be determined by words, then perhaps they are more powerful than actions.

However, what are words without actions behind them? Consider a situation where someone says they can do something, but then demonstrates they really can’t. Or makes a promise, but fails to keep it. Or apologises for something they did, and then does exactly the same thing again. The words become meaningless, and words without meaning have no power. They lose their ability to influence, convince, or support anything. In this sense, words need actions; they are dependent on actions to reinforce them, to give them credence and credibility, to make them mean something. Actions reveal the level of truth behind the words, and that determines what influence the words have upon us.

For example, if someone says, “you can trust me”, and then demonstrates through their actions that you can in fact trust them, this will have a powerful effect on your perception of that person and relationship with them. However, an equally powerful effect will occur if that person’s actions demonstrates that you cannot trust them. The words themselves are unchanged – “you can trust me” – so they are not what determines the direction of influence. It is the actions the person undertakes after speaking them that determines their meaning (or lack thereof), and the ultimate outcome. If words can only derive their meaning from the actions behind them, then it surely it stands to reason that actions are stronger than words.

Consider what happens though when there are no actions, or to put another way, when someone undertakes the action of inaction. You’ve probably encountered this situation numerous times: ever sent an email or left a voice message and not had any response from the recipient? Ever scheduled an appointment with someone and they just haven’t shown up? Ever told someone something and their only answer was silence? Those who follow the concept of neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) tell us that a person cannot not communicate: that is, even when someone does not respond to us, that lack of response is in fact a response in itself. The problem is, how do you know what they’re trying to communicate to you? Are they ignoring you? Are they indifferent? Are they considering? Do they simply have nothing to say or contribute? Or perhaps they haven’t had time to respond? Maybe they didn’t get your message at all? How do you know what they’re telling you?

The fact is you cannot know what the lack of action means without some form of clarification, and this will almost always be through the use of words. Words can explain both action and inaction, and thereby give those actions context and meaning, which then helps our understanding and comprehension. In fact, sometimes words are all you’ve got to be able to convey something to someone else.

Consider a couple separated by distance – perhaps one is a soldier stationed overseas, or needs to travel for business, or for whatever reason just can’t be with the person they belong with. Under these circumstances, the physical presence that conveys the love, security, and support through the many non-verbal cues and actions that occur when they are together is absent. Does this mean all those things suddenly stop, or change, or become less important? Not at all. However, many couples struggle with this situation simply because while they detect this absence – that something is ‘missing’ – they are unable to resolve it, or at least accommodate it, through other means. In this instance, words can be vital, because they might be all you have. We know that words influence feelings, emotions, and behaviours, and if it’s all you’ve got, then doesn’t that make them a great asset in terms of maintaining what you share as a couple?

This is not to suggest words can substitute for actions, nor that one needs to become a poet or bard in order to use words effectively in this type of situation. But saying something – saying anything – about how you feel about someone, what they mean to you, how important they are to you, or your relationship together is to you, can help ensure that you don’t ‘lose’ anything during your time apart.

Now here’s the real kicker. Ask a couple that’s been through this: was it the words themselves, or the action of expressing them, that made the difference? What do you think they will say?

It’s easy to keep going around in circles with this discussion, and therefore why words and actions have been squaring off for so long. Is one stronger than the other? Sometimes, yes, one does appear to be stronger, or have more meaning, or more power, than the other. Ultimately though, both words and actions are equally powerful; it is the context that determines the balance between the two. What does this mean in practical terms? My advice would be: don’t choose a side, or better yet, choose both sides. Just say what you mean, and mean what you say, and you will have the power of both.

Where do you stand? Are actions more important than words? Are words more powerful than actions? Are both equally important to you? Please share your thoughts in the comments below.

Walk the Talk: Why Your Word is One of Your Greatest Assets

3407902250_0ee64a18f7_bEver made a promise but didn’t keep it? What about one that you knew you couldn’t keep at the time you were making it? Chances are, if you’ve ever promised anyone anything, you’ve encountered a time where you just couldn’t keep your word. There may have been legitimate reasons for this, or maybe you just didn’t want to or think it was important. The reactions of those you made the promise to were most likely also determined by the nature of the promise, how much it meant to them, and whether they expected you would keep it. But does it really matter if we break our promises? Should we really be beholden to things we may have said on the spur of the moment, or under certain pressures or emotional conditions?

I’ve always tried to live by the adage, “don’t make promises you cannot keep.” The reason for this is because a person’s word does have value, whether it be in your personal or professional life. The value of our word is reflected in others perceptions of our credibility, our reliability, and our trustworthiness. It influences their desire to want to interact with us, both currently and into the future. Evidence of this is everywhere: the couple that breaks up after a broken promise, the customer who never returns to a store that did not honour an agreement or guarantee, or the politician who is voted out of office for failing to deliver on the claims that got them elected. But why is this so important? Why do we hold promises in such high regard?

A promise is a binding agreement; a vow, a guarantee, a covenant, a bond, or a commitment.It is more than a statement of intention, in that by making a promise you are pledging to ensure that you will do whatever it is you are promising to do.You could think of it as entering into a contract with someone, where you declare that a certain action or undertaking to be performed, under whatever conditions are agreed upon. Failure to keep your promise could be considered to be a ‘breach of contract’, with resultant penalties. In some cases, promises made ‘innocently’ can be enforced by legal means, as the law often does not differentiate between a spoken promise and a promise made through a formal agreement, such as a contract.

This is where a person’s word can gain or lose its value. You may have heard the phrase, “my word is gold”, and it can be useful to think of the value of a person’s word in such financial terms. Because a promise is not just a statement, but a guarantee, it holds a certain value. You could think of making a promise as making an investment in your word – your credibility, reliability, and trustworthiness – and giving it value. Keep your promise, and the value of your word ‘appreciates’. It increases its net worth, so the next time you make a promise, it is already at this new, higher value. To the promisee, this means your credibility, reliability and trustworthiness are already at a higher level, which means they will be more likely to ‘invest’ in your word, and subsequently in you.

What’s important to realise is that this is not just a one-to-one phenomenon. As your word increase in value with one person, that person then becomes your advocate, your ‘broker’ if you will. They share the value of your word with other people, and may even convince people to ‘invest’ in your word for themselves. In this way, the value of your word grows both actively – through direct interaction with individuals – and passively – through an on-flow effect to others. This is why we see marketing slogans such as, “1 million satisfied customers” – we think to ourselves, “if they were all satisfied, perhaps I will be too.”

Conversely, your word can just as easily ‘depreciate’ in value if you break your promises. Fail to deliver, or follow through, or do the complete opposite of what you guaranteed, and you can be sure that without extenuating circumstances to explain it, your word will suffer. This can have a compound effect if you tend to make and break the same promise over and over again. In fact, breaking the same promise multiple times can result in an exponential reduction in the value of your word. For an example of this, visit any court of law hearing divorce cases: you will likely hear many references to promises broken again and again.

This is also not confined to a one-to-one situation. If your word loses value with one person, you can almost be sure it will lose value to some extent with every person that one comes into contact with. This can have a disastrous effect on your credibility, reliability and trustworthiness, and can make future interactions with others very difficult, if not impossible. It is the reason why many businesses adopt the customer service policy of, “the customer is always right”.

So how do you give your word value? Or more importantly, how do you increase it’s value? Here’s four tips on how you can ensure your word is a worthwhile investment for others:

1. Only make promises you know you can keep – or at least that you know you have every intention to keep. If you know from the start that you cannot, or most likely will not, keep a promise, don’t make it in the first place. You are only setting yourself up for failure, and the fallout can be difficult to recover from. In fact, in many instances people may appreciate that you cannot promise something more than they will a broken promise.

2. Only promise what you can deliver – similar to the point above, this is about being able to ‘walk the talk’, that is, not overestimating or overstating what you can really do. Equally true for business as well as personal relationships, it can be easy to make a grandiose promise, yet fall short in being able to deliver on it. This is not always as bad as failing to keep a promise at all, however it can still damage the value of your word. For example, as a physiotherapist, I never promise my patients that I can cure them, because there are so many variables outside of my influence or control that could affect their final outcome – not the least of which being what they themselves do outside of treatment sessions. What I do promise them is that I will give them my very best level of care, because that is completely within my control and ability to deliver on.

3. No promise is too small – we always remember the big promises that people make or break, but there is great value in all the little ones that are made as well. It’s the little things that attribute to our consistency, our ability to deliver on something over and over and over again, and this can have a much higher net value than one large promise. All promises have value, and the smaller ones are every bit as valuable as the big ones. Think of it like building a wall: you can use the biggest bricks you can find, but it’s the mortar in between that holds it all together.

4. If you must break a promise, show good reason – in a given lifetime, very few people, if any, will be able to keep every promise they make. There are only so many things we can control, and even when we get all of these right, sometimes extenuating circumstances stop us from being able to deliver what we promised. If the reason for not keeping a promise can be seen as plausible, then you can minimise, even eliminate, any detrimental effect this might have on the value of your word. For example, a delivery company promises to deliver, “on time, every time.” But what if there is unusually heavy traffic? Or their vehicle breaks down? Or worse, they have an accident? Would it be fair to devalue their word under these circumstances? Ultimately, that is in the hands of the promisee. However, it is far more likely that someone will forgive a broken promise when it can be shown that it was beyond your control to keep it, than they will if they believe you could have done something to prevent it.

Whether it’s in business, in personal relationships, or even to yourself, invest in the value of your word, make it one of your greatest assets, and it will reward you accordingly.

Are promises important to you? How does a kept promise influence your interactions with others? What about a broken one? Please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section below.