Why Most Communication Training is Complete Rubbish (And What Actually Works)

Connect with us: SB Nation | Medium | Doodle or Die | Morguefile | Coderwall

Here's something that'll make you spit out your flat white: 87% of workplace communication training is designed by people who've never actually had to deliver bad news to a client at 4:47 PM on a Friday. I know this because I've been one of those trainers, and I've also been the poor sod getting trained by someone who thinks "active listening" means nodding like a bobblehead whilst mentally planning their weekend.

After seventeen years in corporate training across Melbourne, Brisbane, and Perth, I've seen more communication disasters than a reality TV show producer. The problem isn't that Aussie workers can't communicate - we're actually pretty bloody good at it when we're not being forced through corporate cookie-cutter programs that treat everyone like they just fell off the turnip truck.

The Day I Realised Everything Was Wrong

Picture this: March 2019, corner office in Collins Street, and I'm delivering my fifteenth "Effective Communication Workshop" that month to a room full of glazed-eyed middle managers. I'm halfway through explaining the "sandwich method" for giving feedback when this bloke - let's call him Dave - raises his hand.

"Mate," he says, "I've been managing people for twelve years. If I tried to sandwich every bit of feedback between compliments, my team would think I'd lost the plot. Sometimes you just need to tell someone they've stuffed up and how to fix it."

Dave was absolutely right. And that's when it hit me like a Melbourne tram - most communication training we deliver is theoretical garbage designed for a workforce that doesn't exist.

What's Actually Broken (And It's Not What You Think)

The real issue isn't that people don't know how to communicate. Walk into any pub in Surry Hills or Fremantle, and you'll hear more genuine, effective communication in ten minutes than in most corporate environments all week. The problem is that we've overcomplicated something that should be natural.

Here's my controversial take: most communication problems in the workplace aren't communication problems at all. They're systems problems, trust problems, and "we're too busy to do this properly" problems disguised as communication failures.

I've worked with companies where managers blamed "poor communication" for project failures, when the real issue was that nobody had time to communicate properly because they were drowning in back-to-back meetings and impossible deadlines. You can't fix that with a two-hour workshop on "clear messaging."

The Australian Factor (Yes, It Actually Matters)

Something else the generic training packages miss completely: we communicate differently here. Not better or worse, just differently. We're more direct than Americans, less formal than the Brits, and we've got this beautiful habit of using humour to diffuse tension that makes most corporate communication models look like they were written by robots.

I remember working with a mining company in WA where the floor supervisor was getting complaints about his "aggressive communication style." Turned out he was just being typically Aussie direct - no fluff, straight to the point. The complaints were coming from recent graduates who'd been taught that every conversation needed three layers of diplomatic cushioning.

The solution wasn't to change his style completely. It was to help the team understand different communication preferences and when to adapt. Revolutionary concept, right?

What Actually Works (The Stuff They Don't Teach)

After nearly two decades of trial and error, here's what I've learned actually moves the needle:

Context matters more than technique. You don't communicate the same way when you're announcing redundancies as when you're celebrating a big win. Seems obvious, but you'd be amazed how many training programs ignore this completely.

Timing is everything. The best-crafted message delivered at the wrong time is still a waste of everyone's time. Monday morning coffee conversations hit different than Friday afternoon emails.

Authenticity beats perfection every single time. I'd rather work with someone who stumbles through their words but means what they say than someone who delivers flawless corporate-speak that means absolutely nothing.

Listening isn't a technique - it's a decision. You can teach someone the mechanics of active listening in an hour. But if they don't actually care about what the other person is saying, all the head-nodding and paraphrasing in the world won't help.

Here's where I'll probably lose some of you: I think most people know intuitively how to communicate well. The problem is that corporate environments often punish natural communication styles in favour of sanitised, politically correct alternatives that strip out personality and, ironically, clarity.

The Perth Incident (And Why Context Is King)

I was running a session for a tech startup in Perth - young team, casual environment, everyone on first-name terms with the CEO. Standard stuff. But the content I was delivering was designed for traditional corporate hierarchies. Complete mismatch.

Halfway through explaining formal feedback processes, the CEO pipes up: "This is mad. We all sit within three metres of each other. If someone's got an issue, they just say so. Why would we need a formal process for that?"

He had a point. Sometimes the best communication training is teaching people when not to overcomplicate things.

That said, three months later they called me back because they'd grown to 45 people and suddenly the informal approach wasn't scaling. The lesson? Communication strategies need to evolve with your context, not remain static because "that's how we've always done it."

The Stuff Nobody Wants to Hear

Here's my second controversial opinion: some people are just naturally better communicators than others, and no amount of training will change that fundamentally. What training can do is help people understand their natural style, recognise when it's working or not working, and develop strategies to adapt when needed.

I've worked with brilliant engineers who'll never be charismatic public speakers, and that's perfectly fine. Their job isn't to inspire the masses - it's to clearly explain complex technical concepts to their immediate team. Different skill, different context, different measures of success.

The mistake too many organisations make is trying to turn everyone into the same type of communicator. It's like trying to make every footballer play striker - you might succeed, but you'll lose the game because nobody's defending.

What Good Training Actually Looks Like

When communication training works - and sometimes it genuinely does - it's because it focuses on practical, contextual skills rather than theoretical frameworks. The best professional development training I've seen concentrates on specific, real-world scenarios that people actually face in their jobs.

Instead of generic "how to give feedback" modules, effective training tackles "how to tell a long-term client their project is three weeks behind schedule" or "how to explain a technical problem to someone who just wants to know when it'll be fixed."

The difference is specificity. Generic training feels irrelevant because it is irrelevant. Contextual training sticks because people can immediately see how to apply it.

The Technology Elephant in the Room

Something else that's changed dramatically in the last five years: most workplace communication now happens via Slack, Teams, email, or video calls. Yet most communication training still focuses primarily on face-to-face interactions.

I'm not saying digital communication skills aren't important - they're crucial. But the transition from "let's grab a coffee and chat about this" to "I'll send you a Slack message" has fundamentally changed how we interact at work, and training hasn't caught up.

Written communication carries different risks and opportunities than spoken communication. Tone is harder to convey but also easier to control. Messages can be crafted carefully but also misinterpreted spectacularly. Video calls eliminate some nuance while adding others.

The point is: communication training that doesn't address digital channels is about as useful as a chocolate teapot in today's work environment.

Where to From Here?

Look, I'm not saying all communication training is worthless. I make my living delivering it, after all. But I am saying that most of it misses the mark because it's too generic, too theoretical, and too removed from the actual challenges people face day-to-day.

Good communication isn't about following a formula. It's about reading the room, adapting to your audience, being clear about what you need, and - crucially - actually caring about the outcome of the conversation.

If you're thinking about workplace communication training for your team, start by identifying specific communication challenges you're actually facing. Not theoretical ones, not industry best practices, but real problems that real people in your organisation are dealing with right now.

Then find training that addresses those specific issues in your specific context. It'll cost more and take longer to organise than buying an off-the-shelf package, but it'll actually work.

And if all else fails, remember Dave's advice: sometimes you just need to tell someone they've stuffed up and how to fix it. No sandwich required.