Posts

Why Your Company's Communication is Failing (And It's Not What You Think)

Walking into a boardroom in Perth last month, I watched seven executives spend forty-three minutes discussing whether to call their new initiative a "program" or a "programme." Meanwhile, their customer satisfaction scores were plummeting faster than a lead balloon in a thunderstorm.

This is peak corporate Australia, folks. We've become so obsessed with perfecting the messenger that we've completely forgotten about the bloody message.

After seventeen years of dragging companies kicking and screaming into functional communication, I've identified the real culprit behind workplace communication failures. It's not what the consultants tell you in their glossy presentations. It's not poor email etiquette or lack of active listening skills – though God knows those are problems too.

The real issue? Your company is communicating perfectly. You're just communicating the wrong things to the wrong people at the wrong time with the wrong priorities.

The Great Australian Communication Paradox

Here's something that'll ruffle feathers: most Australian businesses are actually over-communicating. We send more emails, hold more meetings, and create more "alignment sessions" than our productivity can handle. Yet somehow, everyone still feels out of the loop.

I've seen Melbourne startups where the CEO sends daily company updates that nobody reads, while the sales team discovers product changes through customer complaints. I've watched Sydney corporates spend fortunes on workplace communication training while their middle managers gossip in car parks because official channels move slower than a wet week.

The paradox isn't that we don't communicate enough. It's that we communicate everything except what matters.

Last year, I worked with a Brisbane mining company where safety briefings included seventeen different sign-offs, but equipment failures weren't reported because "there wasn't a proper channel for that." Three weeks later, a conveyor belt breakdown cost them $400,000 in downtime. The CEO's response? More communication protocols.

Sometimes I wonder if we're all speaking English but using completely different dictionaries.

The Email Epidemic Nobody Talks About

Let me share something controversial: email is killing your company culture, and everyone knows it, but nobody wants to admit it because we're all addicted.

The average Australian office worker receives 78 emails per day. They send 34. That's 112 email interactions daily, not counting the ones they delete without reading or the follow-ups to emails that should've been five-minute conversations.

But here's the kicker – and this is where I probably lost half the HR professionals reading this – most of those emails aren't actually about work. They're about covering backsides, creating paper trails, and making sure everyone knows how busy and important the sender is.

I've got clients who CC entire departments on lunch orders. I've seen project managers who forward every supplier email to six people "for visibility" then wonder why their teams ignore critical updates. The signal-to-noise ratio in corporate email has become absolutely ridiculous.

Real talk: effective communication training starts with admitting that half your internal emails are corporate theatre, not actual communication.

The Meeting Industrial Complex

Australia has developed a meeting culture that would make a Swiss bureaucrat blush. We schedule meetings to plan meetings. We hold briefings about briefings. We've created an entire economy around talking about work instead of doing it.

I tracked one marketing manager in Adelaide who spent 23 hours in meetings during a single week. Her actual deliverable work? Done between 6:30 AM and 8:00 AM because that was the only uninterrupted time available.

This isn't productivity. This is performance art disguised as business practice.

The worst part? Most of these meetings could be a well-written paragraph. But writing clear, concise communication requires skill and effort. Booking a conference room and talking for an hour? That's easy. Anyone can ramble for sixty minutes about quarterly objectives and strategic alignment.

Here's what nobody wants to hear: if you need a meeting to explain something, you probably don't understand it well enough yourself.

The Hierarchy Information Bottleneck

Australian workplaces love their hierarchies. Information flows up, decisions flow down, and everyone in the middle becomes a human game of Chinese whispers.

I worked with a Gold Coast retail chain where store managers discovered new uniform requirements through customer social media posts. The corporate office had briefed regional managers, who briefed area supervisors, who forgot to brief the people who actually interact with customers.

Meanwhile, frontline staff observations about customer preferences took six weeks to reach decision-makers, by which time the competition had already responded to the same trends.

Here's the uncomfortable truth: your organisational chart is probably your biggest communication barrier. Information gets filtered, delayed, and distorted at every level. By the time the CEO's vision reaches the shop floor, it's been translated through more perspectives than a UN Security Council resolution.

The Digital Native Vs. Digital Immigrant Communication Gap

This one's causing more workplace friction than anyone wants to acknowledge. Your 55-year-old operations manager prefers phone calls and face-to-face meetings. Your 25-year-old graphic designer communicates primarily through Slack, emoji, and shared documents they expect you to find yourself.

Neither approach is wrong, but the collision between these communication styles is creating genuine workplace conflict. I've mediated disputes that essentially boiled down to generational communication preferences being interpreted as disrespect or incompetence.

The operations manager thinks the designer is flippant and unprofessional. The designer thinks the operations manager is micromanaging and inefficient. Both are frustrated because they're trying to communicate respect and competence using completely different languages.

Most companies pretend this gap doesn't exist or try to force everyone into one communication style. Both approaches fail spectacularly.

The "Transparency" Trap

Every company claims they want transparent communication. Most are lying – they want controlled transparency, which is like being a little bit pregnant.

True transparency means admitting when strategies aren't working. It means acknowledging resource constraints and competing priorities. It means saying "we don't know yet" instead of crafting elaborate updates that say nothing while appearing comprehensive.

I've worked with companies that publish monthly transparency reports while simultaneously refusing to explain why three major projects were quietly cancelled. They hold all-hands meetings to discuss company values but won't address the rumours about layoffs that everyone's discussing in private.

Employees aren't stupid. They can sense the difference between genuine transparency and corporate theatre. When you promise openness but deliver carefully curated information, you've actually made communication worse, not better.

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

After watching hundreds of companies struggle with the same communication problems, here's what actually creates functional workplace communication:

Ruthless prioritisation. Stop communicating everything to everyone. Most people need about 15% of the information they currently receive and 300% more detail on the things that directly affect their work.

Default to over-sharing context, not just decisions. Don't just tell people what to do – explain why it matters, what success looks like, and how their piece fits into the bigger picture. This takes more effort upfront but eliminates weeks of follow-up confusion.

Create feedback loops that actually work. Most companies have suggestion boxes, surveys, and "open door policies" that function like black holes. Information goes in, nothing comes out. Build systems where people can see how their input influences decisions, even when the answer is "we considered this but chose differently because..."

Acknowledge the informal networks. Every workplace has unofficial information channels. Instead of pretending they don't exist, work with them. The office connectors and natural communicators can be your biggest allies if you respect their role rather than trying to control it.

But here's why most companies won't implement these changes: they require admitting that current communication practices aren't working. They demand ongoing effort rather than one-off solutions. They mean giving up some control in exchange for better outcomes.

Most executives would rather buy expensive communication software than address fundamental communication behaviours. It's easier to blame tools than culture.

The Uncomfortable Reality Check

Your communication problems aren't technical – they're human. You can't software your way out of poor listening skills, ego-driven information hoarding, or leaders who confuse talking with communicating.

The companies that actually solve their communication challenges do three things differently:

They measure communication effectiveness, not just frequency. They track whether messages create understanding and action, not just whether they were sent and received.

They train people to communicate context, not just content. Anyone can relay information. Skilled communicators help others understand why it matters and what to do with it.

They design communication systems around business outcomes, not departmental preferences. The goal isn't to make everyone comfortable – it's to help the organisation function effectively.

Most Australian businesses are stuck in communication patterns that worked when teams were smaller, markets were more predictable, and change happened more slowly. We're using 1990s communication strategies for 2025 business challenges.

The solution isn't more communication training or better technology. It's acknowledging that effective communication is a strategic business capability, not a soft skill you can outsource to HR.

Your competitors are having the same communication problems. The companies that solve them first will have a genuine competitive advantage.

The question is whether you're ready to fix the real problems instead of the comfortable ones.