Why Most Communication Training is Bloody Useless (And How to Fix It)

Connect with us: SB Nation | Doodle or Die | Medium | Pexels | Elephantjournal

The bloke in the corner office just spent $15,000 on a communication workshop that taught everyone to "listen actively" and "speak with intention." Three weeks later, Sarah from accounts is still crying in the toilet because her manager told her the quarterly report was "fine, I guess" in the most passive-aggressive tone since my ex-wife discussed dinner plans.

I've been watching workplaces butcher communication for seventeen years now, and I can tell you this much: most communication training is about as useful as a chocolate teapot in the Pilbara sun.

Here's the thing everyone gets wrong.

The Real Problem Isn't What You Think

Everyone obsesses over the mechanics - tone, body language, active listening techniques. But honestly? That's like teaching someone to use a screwdriver when the real issue is they're trying to hammer in screws.

The fundamental problem with workplace communication isn't technique. It's that most people are terrified of saying what they actually mean because they've been trained to believe that directness equals rudeness.

I had a client in Perth - won't name names but let's just say they move a lot of iron ore - where the entire management team spent six months having "conversations" about performance issues without ever actually addressing them. They'd dance around problems like they were doing some sort of corporate ballet.

"We need to discuss your approach to client relationships," instead of "You were rude to Mrs Henderson and she's threatening to take her business elsewhere."

Here's what I learned the hard way: effective communication training only works when people understand that clarity isn't cruel - it's kind.

The Australian Workplace Culture Problem

We've got this weird cultural hangover in Australia where being direct is somehow considered "un-Australian." Mate, that's absolute rubbish.

You know what's actually un-Australian? Letting problems fester because you're too polite to address them properly. Making someone guess what you mean instead of just bloody saying it.

I worked with a team in Brisbane where the project manager would say things like "It might be worth considering whether we should perhaps look at potentially reviewing our timeline." What he meant was "We're three weeks behind and if we don't fix this now, we're screwed."

The result? Half the team thought they were on track, the other half thought they had plenty of time, and the client started asking uncomfortable questions about milestones.

Compare that to a mining company I worked with in the Kimberley. The site supervisor would say, "Right, we've got a problem with the conveyor belt, it's going to cost us four hours, and here's exactly what we're doing about it." Clear. Direct. No confusion.

Both approaches are equally Australian, but guess which one actually gets results?

Why "Professional" Communication is Often Unprofessional

Here's an unpopular opinion: most "professional" communication is actually deeply unprofessional because it wastes everyone's time.

Those lengthy emails that take three paragraphs to ask for a simple yes or no answer? Unprofessional.

Meetings where half the agenda items are discussed in corporate speak that means nothing? Waste of everyone's time and money.

Performance reviews that use seventeen different euphemisms to avoid saying someone's not doing their job properly? Completely useless for everyone involved.

I remember working with a tech company in Melbourne where they'd actually banned direct requests in emails. Everything had to be framed as a "discussion opportunity" or "collaborative exploration."

The result was emails like: "I wanted to reach out and explore the possibility of perhaps having a conversation about potentially discussing whether it might be appropriate to consider the option of maybe updating the client database."

Translation: "Please update the client database."

The CEO eventually called me in because projects were taking 40% longer than they should have. Turns out, people were spending so much time decoding what everyone actually meant that nothing was getting done efficiently.

The Real Skills People Need (That Nobody Teaches)

After nearly two decades in this game, here's what actually makes the difference:

Permission to be direct. Most people know how to communicate clearly - they just don't think they're allowed to. Give them explicit permission and watch productivity soar.

Scripts for difficult conversations. Don't just tell people to "have a chat" about performance issues. Give them the actual words. "Sarah, I need to talk to you about the Henderson account. Yesterday's phone call didn't go well, and here's specifically what needs to change."

The difference between aggressive and assertive. This is where most training programs completely stuff up. They're so afraid of creating conflict that they teach people to communicate like they're asking for permission to exist.

Aggressive: "You always mess up the reports." Passive: "I was wondering if maybe, when you have time, perhaps we could discuss some tiny improvements to the reports?" Assertive: "The reports need to be more detailed. Here's what I need included, and here's the new deadline."

See the difference? Assertive communication is clear, specific, and respectful. It's not rude, it's professional.

Technology is Making Things Worse

And don't get me started on how technology has completely bollixed workplace communication.

Email has taught people to write novels when a sentence would do. Slack has everyone communicating in reaction emojis like they're teenagers. Video calls have half the team on mute while someone's dog barks in the background.

I had a client where the marketing team was having three-hour video conferences to plan Instagram posts. Three hours. For social media content that takes twenty minutes to create.

Meanwhile, the most successful business communication I've seen lately happened at a construction company where the project manager sent a one-line text: "Concrete truck, 2pm, back gate."

Everyone knew exactly what they needed to know.

But here's the thing that really gets me - we've somehow convinced ourselves that longer equals better. More words means more professional. More meetings means more collaboration.

Bollocks.

What Actually Works (From Someone Who's Seen It All)

The best communication training I ever delivered was to a logistics company in Adelaide. Instead of teaching them theory, I spent three days just sitting in their meetings and interrupting every time someone said something unclear.

"Sorry, Dave, what exactly do you need from Jenny by Thursday?" "Hold on, Susan, when you say 'soon,' do you mean today, this week, or this month?" "Right, stop. Can someone tell me in one sentence what decision we're making here?"

By day three, they were doing it themselves. Turns out people actually prefer clarity - they just needed someone to give them permission to ask for it.

The key is making unclear communication socially unacceptable. Not rude or aggressive - just genuinely unacceptable in the same way that showing up to work in pyjamas would be unacceptable.

I tell managers: if someone in your team speaks in corporate gobbledygook, interrupt them politely and ask them to try again in plain English. Do it every time, without exception, and watch how quickly behaviour changes.

The Feedback Revolution Nobody Talks About

Here's another thing most communication programs get completely wrong: feedback.

They teach people to sandwich criticism between compliments, or to use "I statements" that make everything sound wishy-washy.

The best feedback conversation I ever witnessed was between a chef and a kitchen hand in Perth. The chef said, "Mate, your knife skills are improving, but you're still too slow on the vegetables. Watch me do the onions again, then practice for twenty minutes."

Clear. Specific. Actionable. No emotional manipulation, no corporate speak, just useful information delivered respectfully.

Compare that to the typical workplace feedback: "We really appreciate your contributions to the team, and while we value your unique perspective, there might be some opportunities for growth in terms of potentially enhancing certain aspects of your performance in ways that could benefit both you and the organisation."

What does that even mean? How is anyone supposed to improve based on that feedback?

The kitchen hand knew exactly what to work on and how to do it. The office worker has no idea whether they're doing well or poorly.

Time Management Through Communication

Here's something most people don't realise: poor communication is actually a time management problem in disguise.

That meeting that should have taken fifteen minutes but ran for an hour? Poor communication. Those seventeen follow-up emails trying to clarify what was decided? Poor communication. The project that's three weeks late because nobody understood the requirements? You guessed it.

I worked with an engineering firm where time management training completely failed until we fixed their communication problems first. Turns out you can't manage time effectively if half your day is spent trying to figure out what people actually mean.

The solution was simple: before any meeting, someone had to circulate a one-page summary of what needed to be decided. During the meeting, someone's job was to interrupt and ask "So what are we deciding here?" every time the conversation started drifting.

Meeting times dropped by an average of 60%.

More importantly, people stopped dreading meetings because they knew they wouldn't be wasting their time.

The Leadership Communication Gap

The biggest communication failures I see happen at the leadership level. Senior managers who think that being vague makes them seem strategic, or that speaking in business jargon demonstrates their expertise.

I had one CEO who would send company-wide emails that read like UN diplomatic cables. "In accordance with our ongoing commitment to operational excellence and stakeholder value optimisation, we are implementing a strategic realignment of our human capital deployment."

Translation: "We're restructuring and some people will lose their jobs."

His employees spent more time gossiping about what he might have meant than actually working. Productivity plummeted, rumours spread, and good people started leaving because they had no idea what was happening to the company.

After some very direct feedback, he started sending emails like: "We need to reduce costs by 15%. This means restructuring three departments and unfortunately letting six people go. Here's exactly what's happening and when."

Morale actually improved, even though the news was objectively worse. Turns out people prefer bad news delivered clearly over good news they can't understand.

Why Most Training Fails (And What Works Instead)

Here's the uncomfortable truth about communication training: most of it fails because it focuses on style over substance.

People spend days learning about "mirroring body language" and "reading micro-expressions" when what they really need is permission to say "I don't understand, can you explain that differently?"

The most effective communication training I've ever delivered was two hours long. Not two days, two hours.

Hour one: everyone practised saying "I need this by Tuesday" instead of "When you get a chance, it would be great if we could perhaps look at getting this sorted."

Hour two: everyone practised asking "What specifically do you need from me?" instead of nodding along when given vague instructions.

That's it. No role playing, no personality assessments, no complicated frameworks. Just permission to communicate like adults having a professional conversation.

Six months later, their project delivery times had improved by 30% and employee satisfaction scores went up across the board.

The Future of Workplace Communication

Here's what I think will happen over the next decade: companies that prioritise clear, direct communication will absolutely destroy their competitors.

While everyone else is still having meetings about having meetings, the clear communicators will be making decisions, solving problems, and getting stuff done.

I'm already seeing it happen. The most successful businesses I work with now are the ones that have embraced radical clarity in their communication.

No jargon. No corporate speak. No dancing around issues.

Just honest, direct, professional communication that treats people like intelligent adults who can handle the truth.

The companies that don't figure this out? They'll be the ones wondering why their best people keep leaving, why projects take forever, and why nothing ever seems to get properly resolved.

Because here's the thing about communication in the workplace: it's not just about being nice or following the latest management trend.

It's about respect. Respecting people enough to tell them the truth clearly. Respecting their time enough not to waste it with unclear instructions. Respecting their intelligence enough not to bury important information in corporate waffle.

And if your workplace communication doesn't do that, then frankly, you're not communicating at all.

You're just making noise.