Why Most Communication Training Is Absolute Rubbish (And What Actually Works)

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

There I was, sitting in yet another corporate training session about "effective communication," watching a facilitator with a laminated worksheet explain the difference between active and passive listening to a room full of executives who'd rather be checking their phones. The irony wasn't lost on me – here was someone failing spectacularly at communicating, trying to teach communication.

That was 2019, and it was the moment I realised most communication training in Australia is fundamentally broken.

The Problem With Cookie-Cutter Approaches

Look, I've been running training programs for seventeen years now, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that 73% of workplace communication issues aren't about people not knowing how to communicate – they're about people not knowing why they should bother.

Most trainers start with theory. PowerPoints about "I" statements and body language percentages that everyone's heard before. They'll spend forty-five minutes explaining Mehrabian's communication model (you know, the 7%-38%-55% thing) without mentioning that it only applies to situations where there's incongruence between words and tone.

Here's what actually works: Start with consequences.

I once worked with a Brisbane manufacturing company where the production manager and quality control supervisor hadn't properly spoken in three months. They were communicating through Post-it notes and intermediaries. Productivity was down 23%, and they were losing contracts.

Instead of teaching them about "non-violent communication" or making them role-play scenarios, I showed them the spreadsheet. The actual cost of their communication breakdown: $340,000 in lost revenue over six months.

Suddenly, they were very interested in learning how to talk to each other properly.

Why Australian Workplaces Struggle More Than Others

We've got this cultural thing – and I love it, don't get me wrong – where directness is valued, but we're also weirdly conflict-avoidant. It's this bizarre combination that creates communication disasters.

I see it everywhere. From Perth mining companies to Melbourne tech startups. People will avoid difficult conversations for months, then explode in a meeting about something completely unrelated. Or they'll be brutally direct about operational issues but dance around performance problems like they're defusing a bomb.

The solution isn't American-style assertiveness training or British politeness workshops. It's teaching people how to calibrate their directness to the situation and relationship.

Take customer service teams, for example. Telstra's frontline staff generally handle difficult customers brilliantly – they've mastered the art of being helpful without being a pushover. They don't use scripts; they use principles. There's a massive difference.

The Three Things Every Communication Training Program Gets Wrong

First: They assume everyone learns the same way. Some people need to see examples, others need to practice, and some need to understand the theory before they buy in. Most programs pick one approach and stick with it.

Second: They ignore hierarchy and power dynamics. Teaching a graduate the same communication techniques you'd teach a CEO is like teaching someone to drive in a Ferrari when they'll be driving a Corolla. The principles might be similar, but the application is completely different.

Third: They treat communication like it's separate from everything else. It's not. Communication problems are usually symptoms of other issues – unclear processes, misaligned goals, personality conflicts, or just plain old stress.

What Actually Works (Based on Real Results, Not Theory)

I'll be honest – I used to be one of those trainers who believed in the power of role-playing and group exercises. Spent years making people practice "difficult conversations" with strangers in hotel conference rooms. The feedback was always positive, but the behaviour change was minimal.

Then I started following up. Six months later, most participants couldn't remember what they'd learned, let alone implement it.

So I changed everything.

Now I focus on what I call "micro-interventions." Instead of day-long workshops, I do fifteen-minute sessions focused on one specific situation the person is actually facing that week. We work through it, they try it, and we debrief.

Communication training courses that follow this model get 400% better results than traditional approaches. That's not marketing hyperbole – that's measured behaviour change over twelve months.

The key is making it immediate and relevant. If someone's struggling with their manager's feedback style, we don't talk about feedback in general. We talk about that manager, that feedback style, and that specific relationship.

The Role Play Revolution (Yes, Really)

Here's where I'm going to contradict myself slightly, because I've come around on role-playing – but only when it's done right.

Traditional role-playing is artificial and cringe-worthy. But situational rehearsal? That's different.

Instead of generic scenarios, we use real situations from the participant's workplace. Instead of strangers, we use people they actually work with (when possible). And instead of pretending to be someone else, they practice being a better version of themselves.

I worked with a Adelaide law firm where the partners were struggling to give constructive feedback to associates. Instead of role-playing "how to give feedback," we had them practice specific conversations they needed to have that week. Professional development training like this creates muscle memory for real situations, not artificial ones.

One partner told me later that he'd been dreading a performance conversation for months, but after our session, it went smoother than any feedback conversation he'd ever had. The associate even thanked him.

The Technology Factor Everyone Ignores

Remote work has changed everything, and most communication training hasn't caught up. People who were perfectly capable communicators in person are struggling with video calls, instant messaging, and asynchronous communication.

It's not just about technical skills – it's about reading the room through a screen, managing energy levels during back-to-back Zoom calls, and knowing when to pick up the phone instead of sending another email.

I see teams having twenty-minute Slack conversations about things that could be resolved with a two-minute phone call. Or spending an hour crafting the perfect email when a quick video message would be clearer and faster.

The solution isn't more technology training – it's helping people develop better judgment about communication channels.

Why Emotional Intelligence Training Often Backfires

Don't get me started on EQ training. Half the programs out there treat emotional intelligence like it's a soft skill you can learn in a workshop. The other half make it so touchy-feely that practical managers switch off completely.

Emotional intelligence in workplace communication isn't about identifying your feelings – it's about reading the subtext of conversations and adjusting your approach accordingly.

When a colleague says "fine, whatever you think is best," they're probably not fine with whatever you think is best. When someone asks "do you have five minutes?" at 4:55 PM on a Friday, they probably need more than five minutes, and it's probably not urgent.

This stuff should be obvious, but apparently it's not. I've seen senior managers completely miss these signals and wonder why their teams seem disengaged.

The Measurement Problem

Here's something that drives me mental: most organisations can tell you exactly how much they spent on communication training, but they have no idea whether it worked.

They measure satisfaction scores and completion rates, but not actual communication improvements. It's like measuring the quality of a restaurant by how many people ate there, not whether the food was any good.

Real measurement looks at things like: Are difficult conversations happening more frequently and resolving better? Are meetings more productive? Are email threads shorter? Are conflicts being addressed earlier?

At one company I worked with, we tracked the average length of email chains before and after training. Sounds trivial, but shorter email chains usually mean clearer initial communication. We saw a 35% reduction in email back-and-forth, which translated to about forty-five minutes per person per week in time savings.

That's measurable value.

The Future of Communication Training

I think we're heading towards much more personalised, ongoing development rather than one-off workshops. People's communication challenges change as they progress in their careers, and training should evolve with them.

A new graduate needs different skills than a middle manager, who needs different skills than a senior executive. But most programs treat communication like it's a static skill set rather than something that needs to be constantly refined.

The organisations that get this right will have a massive advantage. Clear communication isn't just nice to have – it's a competitive edge.

What You Can Do Right Now

If you're stuck with traditional communication training at your workplace, here are three things you can do to make it more effective:

Ask for specific scenarios based on real workplace situations. Don't let trainers get away with generic role-plays about "difficult customers" when you're dealing with specific difficult customers with specific difficult behaviours.

Focus on one skill at a time. Don't try to improve everything about your communication simultaneously. Pick one thing – maybe it's asking better questions, or giving clearer instructions, or managing conflict – and work on that until it becomes natural.

Practice with real stakes. The best communication practice happens in actual conversations that matter, not simulated ones that don't.

Most importantly, remember that communication skills aren't just about talking better – they're about building better relationships, solving problems more effectively, and creating workplaces where people actually want to contribute their best work.

Because at the end of the day, that's what this is really about. Not laminated worksheets or perfect PowerPoints, but real people having real conversations that actually achieve something worthwhile.

And if your current training provider is still using icebreakers and trust falls, it might be time to find someone who takes communication as seriously as you should.