Posts

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

The bloke next to me at the coffee shop yesterday was having what I can only describe as the world's most painful phone conversation with his boss. Twenty minutes of "Um, yeah, so like, what I meant was..." followed by awkward silences you could park a truck in. Made me realise how bloody terrible most people are at workplace communication, despite the fact we've been talking since we were toddlers.

After seventeen years training managers across Australia, I've seen it all. The marketing director who thinks talking louder equals better communication. The accountant who sends novels via email when a two-sentence text would do. The CEO who nods enthusiastically during meetings then completely ignores everything discussed.

Here's the thing that drives me mental: everyone thinks they're already good at communication because they've been doing it their whole lives. It's like saying you're good at driving because you've been sitting in cars since childhood.

The Mirror Problem Nobody Talks About

Most communication training focuses on speaking techniques, body language, and presentation skills. Fair dinkum, that's backwards thinking.

The real issue? People don't know how to listen to themselves.

I was working with a team in Melbourne last month, and during our role-playing exercise, I recorded their conversations. When we played them back, the shock on their faces was priceless. "Do I really say 'um' that much?" one manager asked. She'd said it forty-seven times in a five-minute conversation.

That's not even the worst part. The worst part is how often people interrupt without realising it. We tracked interruptions during a typical Monday morning meeting at a Brisbane consulting firm - eleven interruptions in fifteen minutes. Eleven! And when I pointed it out, half the team argued they weren't interrupting, just "adding valuable input."

Why Email Is Destroying Your Relationships

Let me be controversial here: email is making us worse communicators, not better.

I know, I know. Everyone loves email because it's "efficient" and "creates a paper trail." But efficiency without clarity is just fast confusion. And paper trails don't mean much when nobody understands what's written on them.

Last year, I helped a Perth mining company resolve what they called "the great project disaster of 2024." Turned out, the entire mess started with one email that was interpreted three different ways by three different departments. The original sender thought he was being clear and concise. The recipients thought he was being vague and dismissive.

The solution wasn't better email etiquette training - though they desperately needed that too. The solution was picking up the bloody phone.

But here's where I'll lose half my audience: sometimes face-to-face conversations are overrated too.

The Three-Sentence Rule That Changed Everything

About five years ago, I started teaching what I call the "three-sentence rule" for difficult conversations. Simple concept: before responding to anything emotionally charged, you must say exactly three sentences. No more, no less.

Sentence one: acknowledge what you heard. Sentence two: share your perspective. Sentence three: ask a clarifying question.

Sounds basic, right? It's revolutionised how my clients handle conflict.

Sarah, a project manager from Adelaide, told me this technique saved her marriage and her career in the same week. During a heated discussion with her team about missed deadlines, instead of launching into her usual fifteen-minute defence, she said: "I understand you're frustrated about the delays. From my perspective, we're dealing with scope changes that weren't anticipated in the original timeline. What specific support do you need to get back on track?"

The room went quiet. Then, actual problem-solving began.

Of course, this only works if you actually listen to the answers. Which brings me to my next point.

Active Listening Is Dead (And We Killed It)

Remember when active listening training was the hot topic in corporate development? Everyone learned to nod at appropriate intervals, maintain eye contact, and repeat back what they heard.

Problem is, we turned listening into a performance instead of a skill.

Real listening isn't about waiting for your turn to speak while occasionally saying "I hear you." Real listening is about temporarily forgetting your own agenda to understand someone else's perspective. It's uncomfortable because it requires admitting you might be wrong.

I was facilitating a workshop in Sydney last month when one of the participants, a senior accountant, had what I can only describe as an epiphany. "I've been solving problems people never asked me to solve," he said. "I've been listening for solutions instead of listening for understanding."

Exactly.

The Body Language Myth That Needs to Die

Here's another controversial opinion: most body language advice is rubbish.

Yes, you read that right. All those courses teaching you to cross your arms differently and maintain the "perfect" amount of eye contact? They're missing the point entirely.

Authentic body language comes from authentic engagement. When you're genuinely interested in what someone is saying, your body naturally leans in. When you're confident in your message, your posture automatically straightens. When you're uncomfortable with a topic, trying to fake confident body language just makes you look like a robot having a malfunction.

I learned this the hard way during my early training days. I was so focused on demonstrating "proper" body language that I looked like I was conducting an invisible orchestra while having a stroke. One participant actually asked if I needed medical attention.

The Communication Style Nobody Teaches

Want to know the most undervalued communication skill in Australian workplaces? Knowing when to shut up.

Seriously. We spend so much time teaching people how to express themselves that we've forgotten the power of strategic silence.

I worked with an executive team in Canberra where the CEO couldn't finish a sentence without someone jumping in with suggestions, corrections, or additions. The poor man looked exhausted by the end of every meeting. Not because the contributions weren't valuable, but because he never had space to complete a thought.

So we implemented "completion pauses" - mandatory three-second breaks after anyone finishes speaking before others can respond. Sounds silly, doesn't it? Those three seconds transformed their communication dynamic. People started finishing their thoughts. Ideas became more complete. Decisions got made faster because everyone wasn't constantly talking over each other.

Technology: Friend or Communication Killer?

Let's talk about the elephant in the room: technology is simultaneously the best and worst thing that's happened to workplace communication.

On one hand, I can video conference with a client in Perth while sitting in my Melbourne office, sharing screens and collaborating in real-time. Amazing.

On the other hand, I watched a team in the same Brisbane office building spend an entire afternoon arguing via Slack instead of walking fifteen metres to have a conversation. Not amazing.

The problem isn't the technology itself - it's that we're using advanced tools with stone-age communication skills. It's like giving someone a Formula One car when they can barely handle a bicycle.

When Communication Training Actually Works

Despite my criticism of most communication training (yes, I see the irony), I've seen programs that genuinely transform workplaces. The difference? They focus on thinking patterns, not just speaking patterns.

Effective communication training should challenge how you process information, not just how you deliver it. It should make you uncomfortable with your assumptions, not just your presentation style.

The best program I've seen required participants to record themselves in actual workplace conversations, then analyse their own communication patterns. Brutal? Absolutely. Effective? Incredibly.

One participant, a operations manager from Darwin, discovered she was answering questions people hadn't asked and asking questions people couldn't answer. She'd been doing this for twelve years. Twelve years of parallel conversations instead of actual communication.

The Australian Communication Advantage

Here's something that might surprise you: Australians actually have some natural communication advantages that we don't utilise properly in business settings.

We're generally more direct than our American counterparts, which can be incredibly valuable in getting to the heart of issues quickly. We're less hierarchical than many Asian business cultures, which should make upward communication easier. And we have a cultural appreciation for calling out BS, which should make meetings more productive.

But somewhere between our natural directness and corporate politeness, we've created this weird hybrid communication style that satisfies nobody.

I watched a Melbourne team spend forty-five minutes discussing "resourcing optimisation strategies" when what they really meant was "we need more people or this project will fail." Just say that! Your directness isn't rude - it's helpful.

The Feedback Loop That Actually Works

Most feedback systems are broken because they rely on formal processes that happen too infrequently to be useful. Annual reviews, quarterly check-ins, monthly team meetings - all too slow for effective communication improvement.

The companies I work with that see real improvement implement what I call "micro-feedback loops." Quick, informal check-ins that happen naturally throughout the work week.

"How did that conversation land with you?" "What could I have explained better?" "Did that email make sense?"

Simple questions, asked consistently, create a culture where communication improvement becomes automatic rather than forced.

Why Some People Will Always Struggle

Here's an uncomfortable truth: some people will never be great communicators, no matter how much training they receive.

But here's a more important truth: most communication problems in workplaces aren't caused by the people who know they struggle. They're caused by the people who think they're already excellent communicators.

The accounts manager who speaks in corporate jargon because it sounds professional. The IT director who explains everything in technical terms then gets frustrated when people don't understand. The sales director who turns every conversation into a pitch.

These people aren't bad communicators because they lack skills - they're bad communicators because they lack self-awareness.

The Real Secret Nobody Wants to Hear

After nearly two decades in this field, I've concluded that most communication problems aren't really about communication at all.

They're about ego, insecurity, lack of trust, unclear priorities, poor systems, competing agendas, and organisational dysfunction.

You can teach someone perfect presentation skills, but if they don't trust their colleagues, communication will still break down. You can train someone in active listening, but if the company culture punishes honest feedback, people will still avoid difficult conversations.

The organisations with the best communication aren't necessarily the ones with the most communication training. They're the ones that have created environments where clear, honest communication is valued and rewarded.

Which brings me to my final point: if you're reading this hoping for a magic bullet that will transform your workplace communication overnight, you're going to be disappointed. Good communication is like fitness - it requires consistent practice, honest self-assessment, and the willingness to be uncomfortable while you improve.

But unlike fitness, communication improvement benefits everyone around you, not just yourself. And in my experience, that's motivation enough to keep working at it.

Looking to improve your team's communication skills? Check out our related articles below: