Why Technical People Hate Communication Training

Engineers, accountants, IT professionals, scientists—they've all been dragged through communication workshops that make them want to find a new career. And I don't blame them.
Most communication training is designed by people with backgrounds in HR, psychology, or organisational development. These are valuable perspectives, but they're not the only perspectives. When you're trying to teach a software developer how to explain technical concepts to non-technical stakeholders, you need someone who understands both worlds.
I learned this the hard way about six years ago when I was hired to run a series of presentation skills workshops for a team of data analysts. My usual approach—focus on storytelling, emotional connection, audience engagement—went down like a lead balloon.
These weren't people who needed to become TED Talk speakers. They needed practical techniques for presenting complex information clearly and concisely to busy executives who didn't have time for stories or emotional appeals.
Once I adjusted my approach to focus on structure, visual design, and answering questions efficiently, the feedback improved dramatically. But it took me failing first to understand that effective communication training needs to be as specific as the people you're training.
The Australian Communication Style Advantage
We have something most other countries don't: a communication culture that values directness, humour, and cutting through unnecessary complexity. When it works well, Australian workplace communication is efficient, authentic, and surprisingly effective at building relationships.
But we keep importing communication training models from cultures that prioritise different values—extensive relationship-building (Japan), elaborate politeness (UK), or aggressive self-promotion (USA). The result is training that feels foreign and often counterproductive.
I've seen Australian managers try to adopt American-style "feedback sandwiches" (positive comment, criticism, positive comment) and end up sounding patronising and fake. I've watched teams struggle with British-style indirect communication that just creates confusion in our more direct work culture.
The best communication training I've delivered has been built around Australian strengths rather than trying to fix supposed weaknesses. Instead of teaching people to be more polite, I help them be more precise. Instead of encouraging elaborate relationship-building, I focus on building trust through competence and reliability.
This doesn't mean being rude or dismissive. It means communicating in a way that feels natural and authentic while still being professional and effective.
What Good Communication Training Actually Looks Like
After years of trial and error, I've figured out what actually works:
Start with observation, not theory. Record people in actual work situations—meetings, phone calls, presentations—then analyse what's working and what isn't. You'd be amazed how many communication problems become obvious when you watch them happen in real time.
Focus on specific situations, not general principles. Don't teach "conflict resolution." Teach "how to handle it when a client is angry about a delayed delivery" or "how to disagree with your boss without damaging the relationship."
Practice with real content, not role-play scenarios. If someone needs to get better at presenting budget reports, have them practice presenting actual budget reports, not made-up examples about fictional companies.
Address the emotional barriers honestly. Most communication problems aren't knowledge problems—they're confidence problems, fear problems, or habit problems. Until you deal with the underlying emotions, technical techniques won't stick.
Make it safe to fail. The best communication training creates an environment where people can try new approaches without career consequences. This means smaller groups, confidential feedback, and multiple opportunities to practice.
The organisations that embrace this approach see real improvements in everything from meeting effectiveness to customer satisfaction to employee engagement. The ones that stick with traditional workshop models keep getting the same mediocre results year after year.
The Measurement Problem
"How do we know if communication training is working?"
Every HR director asks this question, and most training providers give terrible answers. They'll talk about satisfaction scores, knowledge assessments, or behaviour change surveys—all of which measure the wrong things.
You can't measure communication improvement with a multiple-choice test. You can't assess presentation skills with a satisfaction survey. And you definitely can't evaluate teamwork effectiveness by asking people to rate their own collaboration abilities.
Real communication improvement shows up in business results: fewer misunderstandings, faster decision-making, better customer relationships, reduced conflict, increased innovation. These things take time to develop and can be influenced by many factors, which makes them harder to measure but much more meaningful.
website :
https://losingmybelly.com/the-function-of-professional-development-courses-in-a-altering-job-market/