All we hear about these days is how Artificial Intelligence is going to ruin our lives, from stealing our jobs to using up all our electricity.  But could it be useful in a strata context?

A friend who recently bought into a medium-sized apartment block has been given the runaround by the strata committee secretary.  Responses to his emails are met with obfuscation and distortions that sound reasonable but in fact only serve to muddy the water rather than address the issues.

Now this friend – let’s call him Theo – has spent decades operating at a high level in business, so he knows his way around a negotiation.  However, he has only rarely had to deal with someone for whom the consequences of inadequate behaviour and obstruction are hypothetical at best.

The Secretary doesn’t get paid so there is no financial penalty if he loses his position. In any case, nobody else wants to do the job, so that position is secure. 

And, provided he doesn’t do anything criminal, there are no consequences if he screws up badly. So what do you do when your emails just aren’t getting a valid response. Theo thought he would run the emails through AI and see what the world’s super computers thought of the communications.

What he got back was frankly stunning in its insight, offering detailed analysis of the Secretary’s attitudes, as revealed by his communications, as well as strategies for dealing with him more effectively.

“It was a clear, direct, pattern-based analysis of the Secretary based entirely on his written behaviour, his procedural manoeuvres, his communication style, and the structural position he occupies within the SC,” says Theo.

“This is not psychology. It is behavioural pattern analysis relevant to strategy, governance, and NCAT risk.”

Now, could you get similar insights if you fed the machine some emails and asked it to analyse them?  Yes, indeed, but the key seems to be to provide prompts that are neutral.

For instance, ask the machine what the prevailing attitudes of the emails’ authors are, rather than “show me how the secretary is being obstructive”. Then ask it how to communicate with this person in the most productive way.

To test this, I uploaded an archived angry email exchange between myself and a then senior member of Strata Community Association (NSW).

If you need context, you can read the emails HERE (I won’t include them here as they are very long). They are from several years ago and open with an invitation to a lunch with the SCA executive. They have only been edited to avoid identifying him and the other parties involved.  The AI response (from Claude.Ai) has been redacted for the same reason.

I’m replicating that response here as an example of how an independent analysis of communications can offer insights and advice, particularly if you keep the prompts as neutral as possible.

The prompt I used was “Analyse this in terms of who is being the aggressor in this exchange and the debating techniques either is employing in the discussion.” And, to be honest, I was pretty sure Claude.ai would say I was the bolshie one.

Who is the Aggressor (according to Claude.ai)?

The SCA executive is clearly the initial aggressor, though he attempts to disguise this with polite language. Jimmy Thomson becomes increasingly defensive but pushes back assertively in his responses.

SCA executive’s techniques

Initial Email:

• Passive-aggressive framing: Opens with faux humility (“remiss of me”) before launching criticism
• Patronizing tone: “seek to understand, then to be understood” – positioning himself as the reasonable adult
• Strawman argument: Mischaracterizes Jimmy’s work as merely trying to “sell newspapers”
• Backhanded compliments: “I’ll be the first to acknowledge strata managers need to lift their game, BUT…”
• Virtue signaling: Lengthy list of SCA achievements to establish moral authority
• Conditional respect: “In the event you don’t believe a lunch would be worthwhile, please remember…” (implying Jimmy is unreasonable if he declines)
• Veiled threats: The implication that Jimmy’s criticism is harming the industry

Second Email:

• Gaslighting: “it was never my intent to cause offense” after sending a clearly accusatory email
• False equivalence: Claims to enjoy Jimmy’s work while simultaneously attacking it
• Tone policing: “you should know better than anyone that words matter”
• Moving goalposts: Shifts from general accusations to specific issues
• Selective reading: Interprets Jimmy’s article in the worst possible light
• Concern trolling: Frames attacks as helpful feedback about how Jimmy is perceived

Final Response:

• Projection: Accuses Jimmy of belittling after calling him a “mouthpiece”
• Playing the victim: Acts hurt when Jimmy pushes back

Jimmy’s Techniques

First Response:

• Direct confrontation: Immediately calls out the aggressive language (“taunts,” “tiresome,” “reeks”)
• Refuting with evidence: Provides specific examples of problematic strata management
• Appeal to track record: Demonstrates his positive coverage of SCA improvements
• Boundary setting: Politely but firmly declines the lunch
• Constructive criticism: Offers specific, actionable suggestions for SCA
• Self-defense without apologizing: Stands behind his work while clarifying misunderstandings

Second Response:

• Calling out hypocrisy: Points out SCA executive’s use of “mouthpiece” after criticizing Jimmy’s language
• Strategic withdrawal: Recognizes the conversation has become unproductive
• Firm boundary: Won’t continue while being insulted

Overall Assessment

SCA executive initiated contact as the aggressor, using a classic “concern troll” approach – pretending to seek understanding while actually delivering criticism wrapped in diplomatic language. His technique relies on:

• Positioning himself as reasonable while framing Jimmy as divisive
• Using institutional authority (SCA executive) to add weight
• Attempting to guilt Jimmy into compliance

Jimmy responds defensively but reasonably, providing evidence for his positions and maintaining professional boundaries. He doesn’t take the bait of the lunch invitation (which would put him in a subordinate position as the recipient of [SCA] “shout”).

The exchange reveals a fundamental power dynamic issue: [SCA executive] wants Jimmy to tone down criticism of an industry [that he] represents, while Jimmy maintains his role as an independent journalist requires calling out problems regardless of who it offends.

Winner of the exchange: Jimmy, who maintained his professional integrity, provided substantive responses, and ultimately refused to continue a conversation conducted in bad faith.

How might I have handled this better?

I didn’t ask Claude.AI  to declare a winner (but I’ll take it). Instead I then asked it to tell me how I could have handled this better and achieved a more productive outcome,

Strategic Improvements

1. Avoid Taking the Bait on Tone Jimmy’s opening – highlighting “taunts,” “tiresome,” and “reeks” – immediately escalates defensiveness. Instead:

• Acknowledge the concern without dwelling on word choice
• “Thanks for reaching out. I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective on my coverage of the strata industry.”

2. Separate Personal Grievances from Professional Points Jimmy lists his 30-year history of bad experiences with strata managers, which makes it seem personal rather than journalistic. Better approach:

• Focus on systemic issues, not anecdotes
• “My coverage reflects patterns I’ve observed across the industry and feedback from readers dealing with similar challenges.”

3. Accept the Meeting (With Conditions) Declining the lunch entirely was a missed opportunity. He could have:

• Suggested a more neutral setting: “I’d prefer a coffee rather than lunch – keeps things brief and focused”
• Brought it into his territory: “Happy to meet, though I should mention I’d want to write about our conversation for transparency with my readers”
• Used it to gather information for future stories

4. Reframe the Relationship Instead of defensive justification, position himself as serving the same ultimate goal:

• “We’re both working toward better outcomes for strata owners – you from inside the industry, me from outside. That tension is healthy, not harmful.”

5. Be More Specific and Less Defensive Rather than this:

“I generally assume these individuals are NOT members of SCA… that indicates the regard I have for your organisation”

Try this: “The problematic cases I write about are typically non-SCA members, which is exactly why I regularly advise readers to use SCA-accredited managers.”

6. Don’t Match Aggression in the Final Exchange Jimmy’s last reply (“let this ride for a while… doesn’t require you to belittle and insult me”) ends the conversation but burns the bridge. Better:

• “I think we’ve both made our positions clear. I’m going to take some time to reflect on your points about embedded networks and building management contracts. Perhaps we can revisit this conversation in a few months.”

What Jimmy Did Well (To Preserve)

• Provided concrete examples of both problems and his support for SCA initiatives
• Maintained professional boundaries by declining the lunch
• Offered constructive suggestions (embedded networks, building management contracts)
• Stood his ground on editorial independence

The Bigger Picture

Jimmy’s fundamental problem is that he’s defending when he should be positioning. As a journalist, he doesn’t need [the SCA executive’s] approval or friendship. A more effective approach would acknowledge:

1. Their roles are naturally adversarial: “Industry advocacy and independent journalism will always have some tension – that’s actually how accountability works”
2. He doesn’t need to justify every article: “I cover what’s newsworthy. If that’s uncomfortable for the industry sometimes, that’s the job”
3. The relationship has value despite disagreement: “I’m sure we’ll disagree on coverage from time to time, but I’m always open to hearing about industry developments and initiatives”

Alternative Opening Response

Here’s how Jimmy might have reframed the entire exchange:

“Thanks for reaching out. I understand the strata management industry feels it gets rough treatment sometimes, and I take that feedback seriously.

That said, my job is to inform strata owners – not to promote any particular sector. When I see problems, I write about them. When I see progress (like SCA’s professional standards scheme), I write about that too.

I’m happy to meet for coffee, though I should be upfront: I won’t be changing my editorial approach. But I’m always interested in understanding what’s happening in the industry, and if there are specific factual errors in my coverage, I want to know about them.

Let me know if that works for you.”

This approach:

• Acknowledges the concern without apologizing
• Asserts professional boundaries clearly
• Leaves the door open for ongoing dialogue
• Puts the ball back in [the SCA executive’s] court

Bottom line: Jimmy won the exchange but potentially lost a useful industry contact. With slightly more diplomatic framing, he could have maintained his principles while keeping the relationship functional.

Is this useful?

I think if you have reached a dead end in communications with a committee, a neighbour or a strata manager, it could be really helpful to have an independent super-brain analyse the communications and maybe even offer advice on how to move forward.

As far as my exchanges with the SCA executive went, AI was 100 per cent right and I had lost a valuable industry contact. I could and should have handled it better so that’s a lesson for the future.

For the record, there’s no way back on that relationship. I was not the only recipient of that style of passive aggression and the person concerned was soon hoist on his own patronising petard.