Why Most Workplace Communication Training Misses the Point (And What Actually Works)

Connect with us: SB Nation | Poodleforum | Medium | Waltherforums | Dermandar

Three weeks ago, I watched a perfectly capable accountant stumble through a five-minute presentation about quarterly figures like she was delivering her own eulogy. The irony? She'd just completed a $3,000 communication skills course that promised to "unlock her executive presence."

This is the problem with workplace communication training today. It's all theory and no substance. PowerPoint slides about "active listening" and role-plays that make everyone cringe. Meanwhile, real communication issues are destroying teams faster than you can say "let's circle back on this."

After spending 18 years in workplace training and watching companies throw money at communication problems like confetti at a wedding, I've learned something crucial: most communication training is solving the wrong problems.

The Real Communication Crisis Nobody's Talking About

Here's what actually happens in most offices: Sarah from marketing sends an email that takes four paragraphs to ask for a simple file. Dave from IT responds with technical jargon that might as well be ancient Greek. The project gets delayed, tempers flare, and suddenly you've got a "communication breakdown" that requires a three-hour meeting to resolve.

But here's the thing - Sarah and Dave don't need communication training. They need clarity training.

The difference? Communication training teaches you how to speak nicely. Clarity training teaches you how to think clearly first, then speak clearly second. It's like the difference between learning dance moves and learning rhythm. One's just surface-level copying; the other actually makes you a better dancer.

I've seen this play out hundreds of times. Companies bring me in because they think their teams can't communicate. Wrong diagnosis. Their teams can communicate just fine - they're communicating confusion, uncertainty, and unclear thinking perfectly well.

Why Australian Workplaces Get This Wrong

We Aussies love to think we're straight talkers. "Tell it like it is," we say. "No beating around the bush." Yet somehow, we've created workplaces where saying "we need to have a conversation about improving our communication protocols" passes for direct communication.

Brisbane businesses are particularly guilty of this. I've worked with mining companies up there where blokes who can coordinate complex drilling operations suddenly turn into Shakespeare when they need to write an email. All because someone told them "professional communication" means using fancy words.

Here's an unpopular opinion: most professional communication advice makes people worse communicators, not better.

Take email training. Every course teaches the same formula: greeting, context, request, next steps, sign-off. Sounds logical, right? Except when everyone follows the same template, emails become longer, not clearer. I've seen two-sentence requests turn into six-paragraph novels because someone learned "proper email structure."

The Perth Mining Company That Got It Right

Last year, I worked with a mining services company in Perth that was having "communication issues." Meetings ran over time, project briefs were misunderstood, and client complaints were increasing. Standard diagnosis: book some communication training.

But when I dug deeper, I found something interesting. The technical staff communicated perfectly fine when talking about equipment or safety procedures. Crystal clear, efficient, no ambiguity. But ask them to communicate about timelines, expectations, or project scope? Suddenly they became wishy-washy and unclear.

The problem wasn't their communication skills. It was that nobody had taught them how to think about and discuss the non-technical aspects of their work with the same precision they applied to technical problems.

So instead of teaching them "communication techniques," we focused on workplace organisation training that helped them structure their thinking about project management. Once they could think clearly about timelines and scope, communicating about them became natural.

Results? Meeting times dropped by 40% within two months. Client complaints reduced to almost zero. And here's the kicker - they never did a single communication exercise or role-play.

The Feedback Trap That's Killing Teams

Everyone's obsessed with feedback these days. "Regular feedback improves communication," they say. "Create a feedback culture." More well-meaning advice that misses the mark entirely.

I've seen teams destroy themselves with feedback. Not because feedback is bad, but because most people are taught to give feedback before they're taught to receive it. And receiving feedback well is infinitely harder than giving it.

Think about it. When someone gives you feedback, your brain immediately starts one of three responses: defend, deflect, or demolish. It's not personal - it's biology. Your amygdala doesn't distinguish between "your presentation could use more energy" and "there's a lion behind you."

Yet most feedback training focuses entirely on delivery. "Use the sandwich method." "Be specific and actionable." "Focus on behaviour, not personality." All good advice, but it assumes the person receiving feedback has the emotional regulation skills of a Buddhist monk.

Here's what actually works: teach people to receive feedback first. Train them to sit with discomfort, ask clarifying questions, and separate their ego from their work. Then, and only then, teach them to give feedback effectively.

I learned this the hard way after watching a particularly brutal 360-degree feedback session destroy team morale at a Melbourne consultancy. Everyone had been trained to give "constructive feedback," but nobody was prepared to receive it constructively. The session turned into a verbal bloodbath that took months to recover from.

The Meeting Problem Nobody Wants to Solve

Let's talk about meetings for a minute. Everyone complains about bad meetings, but nobody wants to admit they're part of the problem.

Here's an uncomfortable truth: most meeting problems aren't communication problems - they're preparation problems.

I once worked with a team that complained about "communication breakdowns" in their weekly planning meetings. These meetings consistently ran 90 minutes over time and ended with more confusion than clarity. Classic communication issue, right?

Wrong. The problem was that people showed up unprepared and used the meeting time to think through issues that should have been resolved beforehand. They were essentially having multiple individual planning sessions simultaneously and calling it a "team meeting."

The solution wasn't better meeting facilitation or communication protocols. It was meeting management training that taught them to do their thinking before the meeting, not during it.

Simple rule change: you can't bring a problem to the meeting unless you also bring a proposed solution. Suddenly, meetings became shorter, more focused, and actually productive. Revolutionary.

Why "Active Listening" Is Overrated

Active listening gets more attention than a celebrity scandal, but here's an unpopular opinion: most active listening training creates worse listeners, not better ones.

Why? Because it turns listening into a performance. People learn to nod at the right moments, repeat back what they heard, and ask "clarifying questions" - all while thinking about their response instead of actually processing what's being said.

Real listening isn't about technique. It's about genuine curiosity and suspended judgment. You can't train curiosity through role-plays and checklists.

The best listeners I know never took a listening course. They're just genuinely interested in understanding other people's perspectives. Sometimes they interrupt with excitement. Sometimes they challenge assumptions mid-sentence. Sometimes they sit in complete silence for uncomfortable stretches.

What makes them good listeners isn't their technique - it's their intention.

I remember working with a Sydney tech startup where the founder insisted everyone needed "active listening training" because client relationships were deteriorating. Turns out, the sales team was following active listening protocols so rigidly that clients felt like they were being interviewed by robots.

The fix? We banned all active listening techniques for a month and told the sales team to just have normal conversations with clients. Customer satisfaction scores improved within weeks.

The Email Epidemic That's Actually Simple to Fix

Email is where most workplace communication dies a slow, painful death. We've all seen them - emails that require a PhD in interpretation just to figure out what the sender actually wants.

But here's the thing about email problems: they're not really about email. They're about unclear thinking disguised as communication issues.

Most people write emails the way they think - scattered, non-linear, and without clear priorities. They dump their entire thought process into an email and expect the recipient to sort through the mental debris to find the actual request.

The solution isn't email writing courses. It's thinking courses.

Before you write any email, answer three questions: What do I want? Why do I want it? What happens next? If you can't answer these clearly, don't write the email yet. Go think some more.

This approach has reduced email volume by 60% in companies I've worked with. Not because people communicate less, but because they think more clearly before they communicate.

Technology Is Making Us Worse Communicators (And That's Okay)

Here's another unpopular opinion: workplace communication apps like Slack and Teams are making us worse communicators, and that's actually fine.

These platforms encourage quick, informal communication that often lacks context and nuance. They create an illusion of constant connection while actually reducing meaningful interaction. And they turn every conversation into a written record that can be misinterpreted later.

But you know what? That's not a communication problem - that's a tool selection problem.

Not every conversation needs to happen over chat. Some discussions require phone calls. Others need face-to-face meetings. And some issues are better resolved with a quick walk to someone's desk instead of a 47-message thread that could have been a 2-minute conversation.

The companies that handle this well aren't the ones with the best communication training. They're the ones with clear guidelines about which communication methods to use when.

What Actually Works (The Stuff Nobody Teaches)

After years of watching communication training fail spectacularly, I've identified what actually improves workplace communication:

1. Clarity before communication. Teach people to think clearly before they speak or write. Most communication problems disappear when people know what they're actually trying to say.

2. Context setting. Train people to provide context before diving into details. "I'm calling because we need to solve X problem, which affects Y project, and I need Z from you" covers most communication issues.

3. Assumption checking. Most workplace conflicts start with mismatched assumptions. Teach people to state their assumptions explicitly and check them regularly.

4. Outcome orientation. Every communication should have a clear purpose and expected outcome. If you can't define what success looks like, you're not ready to communicate yet.

5. Energy management. Communication quality drops dramatically when people are tired, stressed, or distracted. Sometimes the best communication strategy is "let's revisit this tomorrow when we're both fresh."

None of these require role-plays, icebreakers, or personality assessments. They're just practical skills that improve with practice.

The Adelaide Law Firm That Revolutionised Their Communication

Last example: I worked with a law firm in Adelaide that was hemorrhaging clients due to "communication breakdowns." Partners blamed associates for poor client communication. Associates blamed partners for unclear instructions. Everyone blamed the admin staff for not passing messages correctly.

Classic communication crisis, right?

Except when I investigated, I found that everyone was actually communicating quite clearly within their own teams. The problem was that different teams had different communication styles, priorities, and assumptions about what clients needed.

Partners valued precision and legal accuracy. Associates prioritised responsiveness and client relationships. Admin staff focused on efficiency and process management. All valid approaches, but they were working against each other instead of together.

The solution wasn't communication training. It was team building training that helped them understand and leverage their different communication strengths instead of trying to force everyone into the same communication mould.

Result? Client retention improved by 35% within six months, and internal conflicts virtually disappeared.

The Uncomfortable Truth About Communication Training

Here's what the training industry doesn't want you to know: most communication problems aren't skill problems - they're systems problems.

People communicate poorly because they're working in poorly designed systems that don't support clear communication. They're overwhelmed with information, unclear about priorities, and operating under conflicting expectations.

Fix the systems, and communication improves automatically. Keep the broken systems and pile communication training on top, and you'll just create more articulate confusion.

This is why one-size-fits-all communication training fails so consistently. It treats symptoms while ignoring causes. It's like giving someone elocution lessons when the real problem is that they don't know what they're trying to say.

What to Do Instead

If you're serious about improving workplace communication, start with these questions:

• Are people clear about their roles and responsibilities?
• Do teams have shared understanding of priorities and goals?
• Are decision-making processes transparent and consistent?
• Do people have the information they need to do their jobs well?
• Are there clear consequences for good and poor communication?

If you answered "no" to any of these, fix those issues first. Communication training can wait.

If you answered "yes" to all of them and you still have communication problems, then maybe it's time to look at individual skill development. But focus on thinking skills first, communication techniques second.

Because here's the thing: clear thinking leads to clear communication naturally. But you can teach someone every communication technique in the world, and if their thinking is muddled, their communication will be too.

And that's the uncomfortable truth about workplace communication that nobody wants to admit: it's not really about communication at all. It's about clarity, systems, and creating conditions where good communication can happen naturally.

Fix those, and the communication problems solve themselves. Keep ignoring them, and no amount of training will help.

Trust me. I've tried.