Communication Techniques for Better Conversations: Why Most Training Gets It Wrong

Connect with us: SB Nation Community | Reddit Profile | Behance Portfolio | GitHub Projects | Medium Articles

Three weeks ago, I watched a senior manager at a Brisbane construction firm completely destroy a team meeting because he'd confused "assertive communication" with "being a complete tosser." The bloke had clearly attended one of those cookie-cutter communication workshops where they teach you to maintain eye contact and use "I" statements, then sent him back to terrorise his crew with newfound confidence and zero actual skill.

This is exactly what's wrong with most workplace communication training today.

After spending the better part of two decades helping Australian businesses sort out their communication disasters, I've come to a controversial conclusion: most people don't need to learn how to communicate better. They need to learn how to stop communicating badly.

There's a massive difference, and it's costing companies thousands in productivity, staff turnover, and plain old workplace misery.

The Real Problem Isn't What You Think

Everyone bangs on about "active listening" and "clear messaging," but here's what actually happens in most workplaces: people know exactly what they want to say, they just say it in the worst possible way at the worst possible time to the wrong person.

Take Sarah from accounts. She's brilliant with numbers, knows her stuff inside out, but every time she needs to explain a budget variance to the operations team, she launches into a fifteen-minute dissertation on depreciation schedules. The ops guys switch off after thirty seconds because they just need to know whether they can buy the new forklift or not.

Sarah doesn't need communication training. She needs someone to tell her that nobody cares about her process - they care about the outcome.

Why Australian Workplaces Are Different

I've worked with teams from Cairns to Hobart, and there's something uniquely Australian about how we approach workplace conversations. We pride ourselves on being direct, but we're actually terrible at it. We confuse bluntness with honesty and mistake silence for agreement.

In most cultures, there are elaborate social rituals around delivering bad news or disagreeing with the boss. Here in Australia, we think we're being authentic by just blurting out whatever's on our minds. Then we wonder why the office atmosphere turns toxic.

The truth is, effective workplace communication isn't about being more Australian - it's about being more strategic. And yes, that might mean learning some of those "fake" social skills that we love to mock.

The Three Communication Disasters I See Every Week

Disaster #1: The Email Novelist

Every office has one. They write emails that could qualify for a Pulitzer Prize in the "Most Unnecessary Background Information" category. By the time you've scrolled through their thesis on why the printer isn't working, you've forgotten what you originally needed to know.

Here's the thing though - these people aren't bad communicators. They're usually the most thoughtful, thorough employees you have. They just need to learn that communication isn't about demonstrating intelligence; it's about transferring information efficiently.

Disaster #2: The Meeting Hijacker

You know the type. Every discussion becomes their personal soapbox. They've got opinions on everything and the stamina to share them all. What's frustrating is that their ideas are often brilliant - buried under twenty minutes of unnecessary context and three unrelated anecdotes about their weekend.

These folks aren't attention seekers (mostly). They're usually passionate subject matter experts who haven't learned the difference between a conversation and a presentation.

Disaster #3: The Silent Treatment Squad

On the flip side, you've got the people who say nothing until everything explodes. They sit in meetings nodding along, agreeing to impossible deadlines and ridiculous demands, then spend the next month quietly sabotaging the project through passive resistance.

This is particularly common in Australian workplaces because we've somehow convinced ourselves that speaking up in meetings is "whinging." So people stay quiet, build up resentment, and then express their concerns through the time-honoured tradition of complaining to everyone except the person who could actually do something about it.

What Actually Works (And It's Not What They Teach You)

Forget everything you've learned about communication frameworks and start with this: most workplace communication problems are actually timing problems.

That brilliant idea you had about restructuring the client onboarding process? Don't bring it up when your manager is dealing with an angry customer complaint. That valid concern about the new software rollout? Mentioning it for the first time in the all-hands meeting isn't going to win you any friends.

I've seen more communication "failures" caused by poor timing than poor technique. The same message that gets you labelled as "difficult" on a Friday afternoon becomes "innovative thinking" when delivered on a Tuesday morning with a coffee and a possible solution.

The Context Rule

Before you open your mouth (or start typing), ask yourself: "What's going on in this person's world right now?" If your colleague just got back from a client meeting that went sideways, maybe postpone your detailed feedback on their presentation style. If your team leader is trying to meet a deadline, perhaps save the philosophical discussion about workplace culture for another day.

This isn't about being fake or manipulative. It's about being human. We all communicate better when we're not stressed, distracted, or overwhelmed. Good communicators recognise this and adjust accordingly.

The Australian Politeness Trap

Here's where it gets interesting for Australian workplaces specifically. We're caught between two competing cultural values: being direct and being polite. Most people swing too far in one direction.

The "direct" camp thinks politeness is dishonest. They deliver feedback like a cricket ball to the face and wonder why people get defensive. The "polite" camp wraps everything in so many qualifiers and apologies that the actual message gets lost entirely.

The sweet spot is what I call "respectfully direct." You can be honest about problems without being brutal about people. You can disagree with ideas without attacking the person who had them. And yes, you can give critical feedback without prefacing it with seventeen sentences about how much you value the relationship.

For example, instead of: "Look, this report is rubbish and needs to be completely redone," try: "This report covers the right topics, but I think we need to restructure it to be more persuasive for the client."

Same message, but the second version focuses on the work, not the person. More importantly, it gives them a clear direction for improvement rather than just highlighting the problem.

Why Most Training Programmes Miss the Mark

The biggest issue with conventional communication training is that it focuses on techniques instead of outcomes. They'll teach you to maintain eye contact and use the right tone of voice, but they won't teach you how to read a room or pick your battles.

Real workplace communication is messy. It happens in crowded offices, interrupted by phone calls, and complicated by office politics. The ability to deliver a perfect elevator pitch means nothing if you can't figure out when your manager is too stressed to hear it.

I remember working with a team in Melbourne where the project manager had attended every communication workshop going. He could recite the principles of active listening in his sleep. But he kept scheduling "quick catch-ups" right after lunch when half his team was in a food coma, and he wondered why his messages weren't getting through.

Technique without awareness is just performance art.

The Conversation Styles That Actually Matter

Forget about being an "assertive communicator" or a "collaborative leader." Those labels are meaningless. What matters is matching your communication style to the situation and the person.

For Results-Focused People: Get to the point first, then provide background if they ask for it. "We need to delay the launch by two weeks because of the software issues. Here's what happened..."

For Process-Oriented People: Give them the context first so they can understand your reasoning. "The software testing revealed three critical bugs that need to be fixed before launch, which means we'll need to delay by two weeks."

For People-Focused Individuals: Acknowledge the human impact before diving into logistics. "I know this affects everyone's weekend plans, but we need to delay the launch by two weeks due to some technical issues we've discovered."

Same information, three different approaches. The content doesn't change, but the packaging makes all the difference.

This is particularly crucial in Australian workplaces where you might have third-generation tradies working alongside recent IT graduates. What works for one group will completely miss the mark with another.

The Follow-Up That Nobody Does

Here's the communication skill that separates the professionals from the amateurs: checking for understanding without being condescending about it.

Most people either assume their message was received correctly or they ask, "Does that make sense?" which puts people on the defensive. Better approaches include:

"What questions do you have about this?" "How does this fit with what you're already working on?" "What's your take on the timeline?"

These questions invite engagement rather than testing comprehension. They also give you valuable information about whether your message actually landed the way you intended.

I learned this lesson the hard way during a project in Perth where I spent twenty minutes explaining a new process to a team, got nods all around, then discovered three days later that everyone had interpreted my instructions differently. Nobody was confused - they just understood different parts of what I'd said.

Now I always end important conversations with something like: "Just so we're on the same page, what are your next steps?" It's saved me countless headaches and probably a few client relationships.

When Communication Training Actually Helps

Don't get me wrong - formal workplace communication training can be incredibly valuable. But only if it's targeted to specific problems rather than generic skill-building.

If your team struggles with meeting efficiency, focus on meeting communication skills. If you're losing clients due to unclear proposals, work on written communication. If there's tension between departments, tackle cross-functional communication.

Generic communication workshops are like giving everyone the same prescription glasses. Some people will see better, but most will just get a headache.

The most effective communication training I've ever delivered was to a Darwin mining company where the engineers and the safety team couldn't have a conversation without it turning into an argument. We didn't work on communication techniques - we worked on understanding each other's priorities and constraints.

Turns out the engineers thought the safety team was being deliberately obstructive, while the safety team thought the engineers didn't care about worker welfare. Once they understood each other's actual motivations, they figured out how to communicate just fine.

The Technology Factor Nobody Talks About

Modern workplaces have communication tools coming out their ears - Slack, Teams, email, phone, video calls, project management platforms. The problem isn't lack of options; it's knowing which tool to use when.

I've seen urgent decisions delayed because someone sent a Slack message to a person who only checks Slack twice a day. I've watched teams burn through hours trying to solve complex problems over chat when a ten-minute phone call would have sorted it out.

Here's my completely unscientific but highly effective guide:

Email: For things that need a paper trail or detailed information Chat/Slack: For quick questions and updates Phone/Video: For anything emotional, complex, or urgent Face-to-face: For difficult conversations, brainstorming, or relationship building

The key is agreeing as a team about which tool gets used for what. Otherwise, you end up with important information scattered across seventeen different platforms and half your team missing critical updates.

The Bottom Line

Effective workplace communication isn't about perfecting your technique - it's about paying attention to what actually works with real people in real situations.

Stop trying to be the perfect communicator and start being the useful one. Focus on getting your message across in a way that serves the other person, not just yourself. And for the love of all that's holy, pay attention to timing.

Most communication problems aren't really communication problems. They're awareness problems, timing problems, or relationship problems disguised as communication issues. Fix those first, and the actual talking part becomes much easier.

Oh, and if you're a manager reading this: your team doesn't need another workshop on active listening. They need you to model the behaviour you want to see and call out the behaviour you don't. Communication culture flows from the top, not from the training budget.

The companies that get this right don't have fewer communication challenges - they just deal with them more effectively. And in today's workplace, that's pretty much a competitive advantage in itself.

Trust me on this one. I've seen it work in mining camps, corporate headquarters, and everything in between. Good communication isn't rocket science, but it does require actually paying attention to the people you're talking to.

Which, apparently, is harder than rocket science for most of us.

---

For more insights on professional development training and workplace effectiveness, explore our comprehensive training resources.