Advice

Communication Techniques for Better Conversations: What 18 Years in Corporate Training Taught Me About Actually Talking to People

The worst conversation I ever witnessed happened in a Melbourne boardroom in 2019. Two senior executives spent forty-seven minutes arguing about quarterly projections while completely missing that they were both saying exactly the same thing, just using different terminology.

I sat there, brought in as their "communication consultant," watching these highly educated professionals talk past each other like ships in the night. That's when it hit me: most people think communication is about talking. It's not. It's about creating understanding, and frankly, most of us are absolute rubbish at it.

The Listening Myth That's Destroying Your Conversations

Here's something that'll ruffle feathers: active listening is overrated. There, I said it.

Don't get me wrong—listening matters. But this obsession with nodding, maintaining eye contact, and parroting back what someone just said? It's performative nonsense. I've seen countless workshops where people learn to be better actors of listening rather than better listeners.

Real listening isn't about technique. It's about genuine curiosity.

When someone's speaking, most people are either waiting for their turn to talk or mentally crafting their response. The secret sauce? Stop trying to be clever and start being curious about what the person actually means beneath their words.

I learned this the hard way during my burnout years. Spent three months in 2016 barely speaking to anyone because I was so exhausted from "performing" conversations all day. When I finally emerged, I discovered something profound: asking "What makes you say that?" changed everything.

Why Your Communication Style Is Probably Wrong for Half Your Team

The biggest communication mistake I see in Australian workplaces? Assuming everyone communicates like you do.

Take my client Sarah from a Perth engineering firm. Brilliant woman, absolutely brilliant. But she'd give these detailed, methodical explanations to everyone, regardless of their communication style. Her team of twelve included three people who needed quick bullet points, four who wanted the big picture first, and five who thrived on her detailed approach.

She was frustrating eight people every time she opened her mouth.

Communication styles aren't just generational—though Gen Z definitely processes information differently than Baby Boomers. It's about recognising that some people need context before details, others need the bottom line upfront, and some need to talk through their thinking process out loud.

Most people adapt their communication style never. They find what works for them and stick with it religiously.

Here's what actually works: emotional intelligence training teaches you to read the room and adjust accordingly. But more importantly, it teaches you to ask people how they prefer to receive information.

Revolutionary concept, right?

The Power Question That Stops Misunderstandings Dead

"What does that look like to you?"

Six words. Game changer.

When someone says "We need better customer service," what do they actually mean? When your boss says "Make it more professional," what's their definition of professional?

I've prevented more workplace disasters with this single question than any other communication technique. It forces specificity. It reveals assumptions. It stops that terrible moment three weeks later when you realise you and your colleague had completely different interpretations of the same conversation.

Used it just last month with a Brisbane retail client. The store manager kept saying they needed "better teamwork." Turned out she meant "people need to tell me when they're struggling with difficult customers" while her team thought she meant "we need more social events." Completely different problems requiring completely different solutions.

Specificity saves sanity.

Why Your Emails Are Probably Making Things Worse

Email communication is where most workplace relationships go to die. Slowly. Painfully.

The problem isn't length—though nobody needs your novel-length status updates. The problem isn't tone—though yes, your attempts at humour aren't translating. The problem is that we're using the wrong medium for the wrong messages.

Here's my controversial take: if it requires more than two back-and-forth emails, you should be having a conversation instead. Not a meeting—God knows we don't need more meetings—but an actual conversation.

I watched a Sydney marketing team spend six weeks emailing about a campaign brief that could've been sorted in a fifteen-minute phone call. Six weeks! The amount of passive-aggression that developed in those email threads could've powered the Opera House.

Some conversations need tone. They need immediate clarification. They need the humanity that comes from hearing someone's voice or seeing their facial expressions.

Quick email test: If you're re-reading your email for the third time trying to get the tone right, pick up the phone instead.

The Feedback Formula That Actually Works

Most feedback conversations are disasters because people approach them like performance reviews instead of development opportunities.

Here's what doesn't work: the sandwich method. Praise, criticism, praise. It's patronising, everyone sees it coming, and the real message gets lost in the artificial positivity.

What works: BE-DO-IMPACT.

BE: What behaviour you observed. Specific, factual, no interpretation. DO: What you'd like them to do differently. Concrete, actionable. IMPACT: Why it matters to the team/project/customer.

"When you interrupt clients during presentations (BE), I'd like you to let them finish their thoughts before responding (DO) because it helps build trust and ensures we fully understand their concerns (IMPACT)."

No fluff. No psychological games. Just clear, respectful communication about improvement.

I've used this formula with everyone from apprentice electricians to C-suite executives. It works because it focuses on behaviour, not personality, and gives people something concrete to work with.

Though I'll admit, the first time I tried it was a complete mess. Forgot the impact part entirely and wondered why the person looked confused. Live and learn.

The Generation Gap Communication Problem Nobody Talks About

We spend so much time talking about millennials and Gen Z in the workplace that we've forgotten about the massive communication gaps between all generations currently working side by side.

A recent study (okay, it was my own informal survey, but still) found that 67% of workplace communication issues stem from generational differences in communication preferences that nobody acknowledges.

Baby Boomers prefer phone calls and face-to-face meetings. Gen X likes email for documentation but conversations for decisions. Millennials want collaborative platforms and regular check-ins. Gen Z prefers instant messaging and video calls over traditional meetings.

Most managers try to enforce one communication style across their entire team. It's like trying to make everyone wear the same size shoes.

The solution isn't complicated: ask your team how they communicate best and meet them there when possible. If your 22-year-old marketing coordinator thrives on Slack conversations, don't force them into hour-long status meetings. If your 58-year-old project manager prefers phone calls, don't bury them in team chat notifications.

Flexibility isn't weakness. It's intelligence.

When Communication Training Actually Helps (And When It Doesn't)

I'll be honest: most communication skills training is pretty ordinary. People sit through workshops, nod enthusiastically, and return to work doing exactly what they did before.

The training that works focuses on practice, not theory. Role-playing real scenarios from their workplace. Recording and reviewing actual conversations (with permission, obviously). Getting feedback on their communication patterns from colleagues they trust.

The training that doesn't work? Theoretical frameworks about communication styles without any practice. Generic scenarios that don't relate to their industry. Feel-good exercises that avoid the messy reality of difficult conversations.

I've run workshops where people practiced having conversations about missed deadlines, disappointed customers, and team conflicts. Awkward? Absolutely. Effective? Remarkably so.

Because here's the thing: communication isn't just about the good times. It's about navigating conflict, delivering difficult news, and maintaining relationships when things get tense.

Most people avoid these conversations entirely, which creates bigger problems down the track.

The Cultural Communication Minefield

Australian workplaces are increasingly diverse, which is fantastic for innovation and perspective. It's also a communication nightmare if you're not thoughtful about it.

Direct communication styles that work well with some cultures can seem rude or aggressive to others. Indirect feedback that feels respectful to some team members might seem unclear or evasive to others.

I worked with a Perth construction company where the site supervisor (third-generation Australian) kept getting frustrated with his engineer (recent arrival from Japan) because he felt like he wasn't getting straight answers to direct questions. Meanwhile, the engineer felt like the supervisor was being unnecessarily aggressive and confrontational.

Both were right. Both were wrong.

Cultural communication isn't about walking on eggshells or avoiding direct feedback. It's about understanding that communication styles are learned behaviours shaped by cultural context, and being willing to adapt your approach accordingly.

Sometimes that means being more direct. Sometimes it means providing more context. Sometimes it means asking questions differently.

Always it means not assuming that your way of communicating is the "right" way.

The Meeting Communication Revolution You're Not Having

Meetings get a bad rap, mostly because they're run terribly. But the real communication crime isn't bad meetings—it's the conversations that should be meetings but aren't, and the meetings that should be conversations but aren't.

Quick decision between two people? Conversation. Status update for the whole team? Email. Complex problem requiring multiple perspectives? Meeting. Brainstorming session? Meeting with specific structure.

Most workplaces get this backwards. They meet about everything and converse about nothing.

I'm also convinced that 73% of meeting communication problems would disappear if people simply said what they meant instead of corporate-speaking their way through everything.

"We need to circle back on this" means "I disagree but don't want to say so." "Let's take this offline" means "This conversation is making me uncomfortable." "I'm wondering if we might consider" means "Do this thing I'm asking for."

Just say what you mean. Please. Life's too short for corporate euphemisms.

Why Your Communication Problems Aren't Really Communication Problems

Here's the uncomfortable truth: most communication problems in workplaces aren't actually about communication. They're about trust, respect, workload, unclear expectations, or personality clashes disguised as communication issues.

You can teach someone to structure their feedback better, but if they fundamentally don't respect their colleague's intelligence, the feedback will still feel condescending.

You can teach someone to listen actively, but if they're overwhelmed with work and stressed about deadlines, they won't have the mental space for genuine listening.

You can teach someone to write clearer emails, but if the team culture discourages admitting mistakes or asking for help, those emails will still be defensive and unclear.

Fix the underlying issues and communication often improves naturally. Focus only on communication techniques while ignoring trust and respect issues, and you'll see marginal improvement at best.

The One Communication Change That Actually Matters

If you take nothing else from this rambling assessment of workplace communication, take this: start treating every conversation as an opportunity to understand rather than an opportunity to be understood.

Sounds simple. Isn't.

Most of us enter conversations with an agenda—to persuade, to inform, to defend, to impress. What if instead you entered conversations curious about the other person's perspective, experience, and concerns?

What if your first goal was always understanding, and your second goal was being understood?

That shift—from talking to understanding—changes everything. It changes how you ask questions, how you listen to answers, how you respond to disagreement, and how you handle conflict.

It's also the hardest communication skill to develop because it requires putting your ego aside. And nobody likes doing that.

But the payoff is enormous. Better relationships. Fewer misunderstandings. More creative solutions. Less workplace drama.

Plus, people actually enjoy talking to you, which is nice.

The boardroom argument I mentioned at the beginning? Ended when I finally interrupted and asked each executive to explain what they thought the other person was proposing. Turns out they agreed on everything except terminology.

Forty-seven minutes of arguing. Solved in three minutes of understanding.

Makes you think, doesn't it?