Posts

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

Here's something that'll probably get me in trouble: after seventeen years of running communication workshops across Melbourne, Brisbane, and Perth, I reckon 80% of what passes for "communication training" in Australian workplaces is absolute rubbish.

Not because the trainers are hopeless—though some are. It's because everyone's fixated on teaching people to communicate like robots instead of actual human beings. Last month, I watched a perfectly competent project manager stumble through a presentation because she'd been trained to avoid "personal opinions" and "emotional language." The result? Twenty minutes of corporate speak that put half the room to sleep.

The Empathy Trap That's Actually Brilliant

Most communication experts will tell you empathy is everything. Listen more, talk less, mirror their body language, nod enthusiastically. Standard stuff.

Here's my controversial take: empathy without boundaries is career suicide.

I learned this the hard way during my early consulting days. There was this operations manager at a logistics company in Rockdale who was drowning his team in micromanagement. Classic case—brilliant technical mind, zero people skills. Following conventional wisdom, I spent hours listening to his frustrations, validating his concerns, really trying to understand his perspective.

Three months later, nothing had changed. His team was still miserable, productivity was down, and I was basically being paid to be his therapist.

That's when I discovered what I call "strategic empathy." You understand their position completely, then you challenge it anyway. Not aggressively—strategically. "I can see why you feel the need to check every email before it goes out, Dave. And I reckon that's exactly what's destroying your team's confidence."

The difference? Night and day. Sometimes people need someone who understands them enough to tell them they're wrong.

Why Australian Workplaces Need More Disagreement

This might sound mad, but we've got a disagreement problem in Australian business. Not too much—too little.

Our cultural obsession with keeping things "matey" means we've created workplaces where challenging ideas feels like personal attacks. I've seen teams spend six months developing products nobody wanted because nobody felt comfortable saying "hang on, this is stupid" in the right way.

The solution isn't American-style confrontation. It's what I call "generous disagreement." You can absolutely tell someone their idea won't work—if you've done the work to understand why they suggested it in the first place.

At a communication training session I ran for a mining services company, the marketing director and the operations manager had been at odds for months. Both brilliant, both completely missing each other's points. Marketing wanted flexible campaigns that could pivot quickly. Operations wanted predictable timelines they could resource properly.

Instead of mediating between them, I made them argue. Properly. With rules. Each person had to restate the other's position before presenting their own. Within an hour, they'd designed a hybrid approach that neither had considered.

The Science Nobody Talks About

Here's something that'll annoy the positive psychology crowd: sometimes negative emotions are exactly what your conversation needs.

I'm not talking about being a pessimistic nightmare. I'm talking about the strategic use of tension, urgency, even controlled frustration to create the conditions where real communication happens.

Think about your best problem-solving conversations. I guarantee they weren't all sunshine and collaboration. There was probably some heat, some disagreement, maybe even some people getting a bit shirty with each other. That's not a bug—it's a feature.

The research backs this up, though you won't hear it in most communication workshops. Studies from Melbourne University's psychology department show that teams with moderate levels of task-focused conflict outperform both high-harmony teams and high-dysfunction teams. The sweet spot is what they call "productive tension."

The Meeting Paradox

Quick show of hands—who loves meetings? Anyone? Thought so.

Here's the thing though: meetings aren't the problem. Bad conversation habits are the problem. Most meetings fail because people bring their worst communication patterns into a room and multiply them by however many people are attending.

You know the types. The rambler who takes five minutes to make a two-second point. The silent majority who nod along then complain in the car park afterward. The devil's advocate who questions everything but suggests nothing. The optimist who thinks every problem can be solved with "better communication" (ironically, usually while communicating poorly).

I've started running what I call "conversation autopsies" after particularly terrible meetings. We replay the worst moments and identify exactly where the communication broke down. Not to blame anyone—to build better habits.

Last week, a client team in Adelaide discovered they'd spent forty-seven minutes arguing about something they actually agreed on. The breakdown happened in the first three minutes when someone used "challenging" to mean "difficult" while everyone else heard "questioning our approach." One word. Forty-four minutes of wasted time.

Why Active Listening Is Overrated

Okay, this one's really going to ruffle feathers. Active listening—that whole paraphrasing, reflecting, clarifying thing—is massively overrated as a communication technique.

Don't get me wrong, it's useful. But it's become the default response to every communication problem, like suggesting people just "communicate better" when they're having relationship issues.

I was working with a customer service team at a major retailer (can't name them, but they sell everything and their ads are everywhere). The team had been through three rounds of active listening training. They could paraphrase customer complaints beautifully. They could reflect emotions with textbook precision.

Customer satisfaction scores? Still terrible.

Turns out, when someone's genuinely upset about a delayed delivery or a faulty product, they don't want to be listened to—they want the problem fixed. All that careful reflecting was actually making people more frustrated because it delayed resolution.

We shifted the focus from listening techniques to problem-solving communication. How do you gather the information you need quickly? How do you explain solutions clearly? How do you confirm understanding without sounding like you're reading from a script?

Satisfaction scores jumped 23% in six weeks.

The Technology Excuse

Everyone blames email and Slack for poor workplace communication. "We've lost the art of face-to-face conversation." "Digital communication lacks nuance." "People hide behind screens instead of having real conversations."

Bollocks.

Bad communicators are bad communicators regardless of the medium. I've seen people be utterly useless in face-to-face meetings then write brilliant, clear, persuasive emails. I've seen others who can charm a room in person but can't write a coherent text message to save their lives.

The medium doesn't make you good or bad at communication—it just reveals different aspects of your communication style.

Some of my most productive business relationships exist primarily through email and video calls. My accountant in Sydney and I have worked together for eight years and met in person exactly twice. But we communicate clearly, directly, and with enough personality that we actually enjoy the process.

Building Your Communication Toolkit

Right, enough complaining about what doesn't work. Here's what actually makes a difference in workplace conversations:

Context-setting is everything. Before diving into any substantial conversation, spend thirty seconds explaining why you're having it. "I want to get your thoughts on the Morrison project because I think we might be missing something important" is infinitely better than "So, about Morrison..."

Distinguish between input and approval. Most workplace conflict happens because people think they're being consulted when they're actually just being informed, or vice versa. Be explicit about what kind of conversation you're having.

Time-box emotional responses. When someone's upset or frustrated, they need space to express that before they can engage with solutions. But unlimited venting helps nobody. "Take two minutes to tell me exactly how this affected you, then let's figure out what to do about it."

Use the conversation sandwich. Start with what's working, address what needs to change, end with next steps. People can handle difficult feedback much better when it's bookended by clarity and forward momentum.

The team development training approaches I've used with manufacturing companies always emphasise this structure. It's not about softening criticism—it's about making sure the important stuff actually gets heard.

The Follow-Up That Actually Matters

Here's where most communication training completely falls apart: the follow-up. Everyone focuses on having better conversations, nobody talks about what happens afterward.

You can have the most brilliant, productive, emotionally intelligent conversation in the world. If nothing changes as a result, it was still a waste of time.

I make clients end every significant conversation with three things: what we decided, who's doing what, and when we'll check back in. Not complex project management—just basic accountability.

This sounds obvious, but you'd be amazed how many "communication problems" are actually "we agreed on something then nobody did anything about it" problems.

The Uncomfortable Truth About Personality Types

Last point, and this one's a bit personal. The communication training industry has become obsessed with personality types and communication styles. DISC assessments, Myers-Briggs, colour-coded everything.

I used to be completely bought into this approach. Spent thousands on certification, built whole workshops around helping people understand their "communication style" and adapt to others.

Here's what I learned after applying it for three years: it's mostly nonsense in practice.

Not because the theories are wrong—some of them are quite insightful. But because people use them as excuses rather than tools. "I'm a direct communicator, so that's just how I am." "She's an introvert, so we can't expect her to speak up in meetings."

Real communication skill is learning to adapt your approach based on the situation and the person, not based on what box you've decided they fit into.

The best communicators I know don't think in terms of styles—they think in terms of outcomes. What does this person need to hear? What's the clearest way to convey this information? What's the most likely way this will be misunderstood?

Making It Stick

Communication isn't a skill you learn once and tick off your list. It's more like fitness—use it or lose it, and there's always room for improvement.

The people who actually get better at workplace communication are the ones who pay attention to what happens after their conversations. Did that meeting achieve what I wanted? Did the other person understand what I was trying to say? Did we both leave feeling heard?

That's the real test. Not whether you remembered to use "I" statements or maintained appropriate eye contact. Whether the conversation actually moved things forward.

Most communication training focuses on technique. The good stuff focuses on results. Everything else is just expensive talking therapy.