Why Most Communication Training is Backwards (And How I Learned This the Hard Way)

Connect with us: SB Nation | Medium | Doodle or Die | Pexels | All Hungry Community

Three months ago, I watched a senior manager at a Brisbane mining company completely destroy team morale in a single meeting. Not through yelling or aggression, but through what most people would call "professional communication."

She spoke clearly. Used proper grammar. Maintained eye contact. Followed every textbook rule we teach in traditional communication workshops. And yet, by the end of that 30-minute session, half her team was mentally updating their CVs.

Here's what no one talks about in communication training: technique without authenticity is workplace poison.

I've been running communication workshops across Australia for 16 years now, and I'm convinced we've been teaching it completely backwards. We focus on the mechanics – the "how to speak clearly" and "maintain good posture" – while ignoring the psychological reality of how humans actually connect in high-stress work environments.

The Netflix Problem

You know what changed everything for me? Watching Netflix documentaries about hostage negotiation. These professionals aren't worried about whether their voice projection is optimal or if they're using the right corporate buzzwords. They're focused entirely on understanding the other person's emotional state and responding to it genuinely.

Meanwhile, we're teaching office workers to speak like they're reading from a teleprompter.

I remember working with a pharmaceutical sales team in Melbourne last year. Bright people, excellent product knowledge, but their conversion rates were terrible. The sales director kept pushing them through presentation skills courses. "Speak with confidence!" "Use more compelling body language!" "Perfect your elevator pitch!"

Complete waste of money.

The breakthrough came when I sat in on actual client calls. These sales reps sounded like robots. Polished, professional robots, but robots nonetheless. Their prospects could sense the artificiality from the first sentence.

We scrapped the presentation training and spent three days on something completely different: emotional intelligence workshops. Not the touchy-feely stuff, but practical skills for reading emotional cues and responding appropriately.

Sales increased 34% within two months.

Why Australian Workplaces Resist Authentic Communication

Here's my controversial opinion: Australian workplace culture actively punishes authentic communication. We've created environments where showing genuine emotion or admitting uncertainty is seen as unprofessional.

I was guilty of this myself for years. Back in my corporate days at a Sydney logistics firm, I prided myself on being "emotionally neutral" in meetings. I thought it made me look competent and reliable.

What it actually did was make me irrelevant.

People stopped coming to me with problems. They stopped asking for my input on important decisions. I was technically proficient but emotionally invisible. It took a brutal 360-degree feedback session to realise that my "professional communication style" was actually preventing me from being an effective leader.

The problem isn't just individual, though. It's systemic.

Walk into any Australian corporate office and count how many conversations sound scripted. "Thanks for reaching out." "Let's circle back on this." "I'll action that immediately." We've created a business dialect that prioritises appearing competent over actually connecting with people.

This is particularly damaging in conflict situations. When tensions are high, the last thing people need is someone speaking in corporate-approved phrases. They need authenticity, even if it's messy.

The Mining Site Revelation

The best communication training I ever witnessed happened on a mine site near Kalgoorlie. Not in a conference room, but during a safety briefing after a near-miss incident.

The shift supervisor – let's call him Dave – completely ignored every "professional communication" rule in the book. He swore. He got emotional. He admitted he didn't have all the answers. He told the crew exactly how scared he'd been when he heard about the incident over the radio.

You could have heard a pin drop.

That five-minute briefing changed safety culture on that site more than months of formal training sessions ever could. Why? Because Dave communicated like a human being who genuinely cared about his team, not like someone reading from a corporate communications manual.

I'm not suggesting we all start swearing in board meetings (though honestly, some of them could use a bit more genuine emotion). But there's something powerful about watching someone communicate without a filter, especially when they're in a position of authority.

The Email Epidemic

Don't get me started on email communication training. Actually, do get me started, because this drives me mental.

We teach people to write emails like they're composing legal documents. "I trust this email finds you well." "Please find attached." "I would be grateful if you could advise."

No human being has ever spoken like this in real life.

I was working with a Perth accounting firm where team productivity was nosediving. They couldn't figure out why projects kept getting delayed and why staff seemed disengaged. So we analysed their internal emails.

The average email in that office required 2.3 follow-up messages to clarify the original intention. People were so busy trying to sound professional that they'd forgotten how to be clear.

We implemented what I call "conversation-style email training." Write like you're talking to a colleague at the coffee machine, not like you're addressing the High Court. Guess what happened?

Project delays dropped by 60% within six weeks.

But here's the thing that really gets me: most organisations resist this approach because it doesn't "look professional enough." They'd rather maintain the illusion of sophistication than actually improve communication effectiveness.

The Listening Problem Nobody Talks About

Active listening gets a lot of attention in communication training, but we're teaching it wrong too. The standard approach focuses on techniques: maintain eye contact, nod appropriately, ask open-ended questions, summarise what you've heard.

This creates what I call "performative listening" – people going through the motions of listening without actually processing what they're hearing.

Real listening in the workplace is about something completely different. It's about temporary ego suspension.

Think about the last time someone genuinely listened to you at work. Not someone who was waiting for their turn to talk, not someone who was mentally preparing their response, but someone who was completely focused on understanding your perspective.

How did that feel? How did it change your relationship with that person?

Most workplace communication problems aren't actually communication problems. They're ego problems disguised as communication problems.

I learned this lesson the hard way during a consulting project with a Adelaide manufacturing company. Two department heads had been in conflict for months. Everyone assumed it was a communication breakdown – they spoke different technical languages, had different priorities, couldn't find common ground.

But when I observed their interactions, they were actually communicating quite clearly. They understood each other perfectly. The problem was that each conversation became a battle for who was more right, more important, more indispensable to the company.

We didn't need communication skills training. We needed ego management training.

The Melbourne Coffee Shop Method

The best communication advice I ever received came from an unexpected source: a barista at a Melbourne coffee shop I frequented during a particularly challenging consulting project.

I was complaining to her about a difficult client who never seemed to understand what I was trying to explain, no matter how clearly I presented the information. She listened for a moment, then said something that changed how I approach workplace communication forever:

"Maybe the problem isn't that they don't understand you. Maybe the problem is that you don't understand what they need to hear."

Brilliant.

Most communication training focuses on output – how to speak clearly, how to structure presentations, how to write effective emails. But communication is a two-way process. If your message isn't landing, the solution might not be to speak louder or more clearly. It might be to listen more carefully to what the other person actually needs.

This is particularly relevant in cross-generational workplace communication. I've watched countless Baby Boomers and Gen Z employees frustrate each other simply because they're optimising for different communication outcomes.

Boomers often prioritise hierarchy and process. Gen Z prioritises authenticity and efficiency. Neither approach is wrong, but unless you understand what the other person values, your communication will always feel off-target.

The Zoom Authenticity Challenge

Remote work has created fascinating new communication challenges. On video calls, we lose so much non-verbal information that traditional communication techniques become even less effective.

But here's what I've noticed: the people who communicate most effectively on Zoom aren't the ones with the best technical setup or the most polished presentation skills. They're the ones who've figured out how to be genuinely themselves through a screen.

This is harder than it sounds. Video calls encourage performative behaviour. We're literally watching ourselves communicate in real-time, which makes most people hyper-conscious of how they look and sound.

The solution? Stop trying to look professional and start trying to be helpful.

I worked with a Sydney tech startup where team meetings had become painful, stilted affairs. Everyone was so focused on appearing engaged and competent on camera that actual collaboration had ground to a halt.

We implemented "authentic meeting protocols." Turn off self-view. Encourage interruptions. Allow people to admit when they're confused or disagree. Basically, communicate like you're in the same room, not like you're performing for a camera.

Meeting productivity improved dramatically, and more importantly, team relationships strengthened.

The Feedback Disaster

Performance feedback conversations are where communication training fails most spectacularly. We teach managers to use "feedback sandwiches" and "constructive criticism techniques" that make honest conversations nearly impossible.

The feedback sandwich – start with something positive, deliver the criticism, end with something positive – is workplace communication at its most artificial. Everyone knows what's happening. The recipient is sitting there waiting for the "but," and the manager is trying to soften what should be a straightforward conversation.

I once observed a manager spend 15 minutes telling an underperforming employee how valuable they were to the team before finally mentioning that their work quality needed improvement. The employee left that meeting thinking they'd received positive feedback.

Honest feedback doesn't need to be cruel, but it does need to be clear. And clarity requires authenticity, not technique.

The Real Solution

So what's the alternative? How do we actually improve workplace communication?

Start with intention, not technique.

Before any important conversation, ask yourself: What outcome am I trying to achieve? Not what do I want to say, but what do I want to happen as a result of this conversation?

This shifts focus from performance to purpose.

Second, match your communication style to the emotional context, not the organisational hierarchy. A team member dealing with a personal crisis needs a different communication approach than someone celebrating a major win. This seems obvious, but most workplace communication ignores emotional context entirely.

Third, prioritise understanding over being understood. Most communication breakdowns happen because both parties are focused on making their point rather than grasping the other person's perspective.

Finally, practice authentic disagreement. Healthy workplaces need people who can disagree respectfully without damaging relationships. This is a skill that requires practice, but it's infinitely more valuable than learning how to give polished presentations.

Look, I'm not suggesting we abandon all communication standards. Professional environments require certain levels of courtesy and respect. But we've swung too far toward artificial professionalism at the expense of genuine human connection.

The most effective communicators I know – the ones who build strong teams, navigate conflict successfully, and drive real results – don't sound like they've graduated from communication training programs.

They sound like themselves.

And maybe that's the point we've been missing all along.