Posts

Why Your Company's Communication Training is Failing

I watched a $50,000 communication training program completely bomb last month, and honestly, I wasn't surprised.

The facilitator - imported from Sydney at considerable expense - spent three days teaching our team how to "actively listen" using role-plays that made everyone cringe. By day two, half the participants were checking emails behind their laptops. By day three, the facilitator was practically begging people to engage.

Here's the thing that gets me fired up: companies keep throwing money at communication training that treats symptoms instead of causes. It's like putting a Band-Aid on a broken leg.

The Real Problem Nobody Talks About

After fifteen years in workplace training, I've seen this same pattern repeat across industries. Companies identify communication breakdowns, panic, then hire the first consultant who promises to fix everything with a workshop.

But here's what actually happens in most workplaces: communication fails because the systems are broken, not because people don't know how to talk.

Take email culture. I've worked with teams receiving 200+ emails daily. No amount of "clear communication techniques" will fix that avalanche. Yet every communication course I've attended spends hours on email etiquette while ignoring volume management.

The uncomfortable truth? Most communication training fails because it assumes the problem is individual skill gaps when it's actually structural dysfunction.

Why Australian Workplaces Are Different

Something I've noticed working across Melbourne, Perth, and Brisbane - Australian communication patterns don't always align with textbook approaches. We're more direct than Americans, less formal than Brits, and we absolutely hate corporate jargon.

I remember one multinational company flying in American trainers who kept teaching "elevator pitches" and "stakeholder buy-in language." Half the room was rolling their eyes. We don't talk like that here.

The most effective workplace communication training I've seen acknowledges our cultural directness. Australians respond better to "Here's the problem, here's the solution" than elaborate relationship-building exercises.

Yet most programs are carbon copies of overseas content. No wonder they fall flat.

The Five Things Actually Destroying Communication

1. Meeting Overload

73% of professionals attend more than five meetings weekly. That's not a communication problem - that's a time management crisis. When people are rushing between back-to-back meetings, of course communication suffers.

2. Technology Overwhelm

Slack, Teams, email, phone, text messages. I counted seven different communication channels at one client site. People weren't communicating poorly; they were drowning in options.

3. Unclear Decision Rights

Who actually decides what? In most organisations, this is murky. People communicate perfectly clearly, but nothing happens because nobody knows who has authority.

4. Psychological Unsafety

Here's where I might lose some readers: most workplaces are psychologically unsafe for honest communication. People don't need better speaking skills; they need assurance they won't be punished for bad news.

I've seen brilliant communicators clam up in toxic environments. The issue isn't technique.

5. Leadership Modeling

Senior leaders who interrupt, multitask during conversations, or respond to everything with "let me think about it" create communication cultures through example. No training program overcomes poor leadership modeling.

What Actually Works (And Why Most Companies Won't Do It)

The communication programs that genuinely transform workplaces focus on systems, not skills.

Successful approaches I've witnessed:

Communication audits. Map how information actually flows (versus how it should flow). Often reveals shocking inefficiencies.

Channel consolidation. One Brisbane company reduced communication platforms from six to two. Immediate improvement.

Decision mapping. Explicitly document who makes what decisions. Eliminates endless "consultation" loops.

Meeting architecture. Ruthlessly eliminate unnecessary meetings. Protect time for actual work.

Leadership accountability. Make communication modeling part of performance reviews for managers.

But here's why companies resist these approaches: they require admitting systemic problems. It's easier to blame individual "communication skills" than acknowledge broken processes.

The Training That Actually Moves the Needle

When companies do invest in communication development, the effective programs share common elements:

They're job-specific. Customer service communication differs from project management communication differs from leadership communication. Generic programs help nobody.

They address real scenarios. Not role-plays about fictional conflicts, but actual situations teams face. I've seen breakthrough moments when people practice handling their genuine workplace challenges.

They include follow-up. One-off workshops are professional development theatre. Sustainable change requires ongoing support and reinforcement.

They measure behaviour change, not satisfaction scores. Did communication patterns actually shift? Are decisions happening faster? Is conflict decreasing?

The emotional intelligence training programs that work focus on practical application within existing workplace dynamics, not abstract concepts.

The Stuff Everyone Gets Wrong

Feedback training. Every program teaches feedback models (SBI, COIN, whatever acronym is trendy). But nobody addresses the elephant: most workplaces punish honest feedback. Technique doesn't overcome culture.

Conflict resolution. Standard approaches assume good faith from all parties. Real workplace conflicts often involve power dynamics, resource competition, or personality disorders. Cookie-cutter solutions crumble.

Presentation skills. Companies spend fortunes teaching slide design and public speaking while ignoring the fact that most presentations shouldn't exist. Email would suffice.

I watched one team spend weeks preparing presentations for weekly updates that could've been handled in ten-minute conversations. But sure, let's focus on their PowerPoint transitions.

What I'd Do Differently

If I was designing communication training from scratch, I'd start with elimination, not addition.

What communication can we stop? Which meetings are unnecessary? Where are we over-communicating?

Then I'd focus on decision speed. How quickly can this team reach conclusions and move forward? Communication effectiveness correlates strongly with decision velocity.

Finally, I'd address the emotional labour of communication. Who's doing the heavy lifting of maintaining relationships, following up, and managing conflict? Usually, it's unevenly distributed and creating burnout.

The Bottom Line

Your communication training is probably failing because it's solving the wrong problem.

People don't need better words; they need better systems. They don't need more techniques; they need clearer processes. They don't need advanced skills; they need basic psychological safety.

Until companies address these foundational issues, communication training will remain an expensive exercise in futility.

Start with systems. Fix the structure. Then worry about the skills.

Everything else is just expensive theatre.

Our Favourite Resources: Why Professional Development Matters | Communication Skills Training | Team Development Training