Advice
How to Solve Problems Easier: The Communication Hack Nobody's Teaching Your Team
Connect with us: SB Nation | Pexels | Medium | Quora | Docker Hub
Three weeks ago, I watched a perfectly capable team of accountants spend forty-seven minutes arguing about whether their printer was broken or just out of toner. Forty-seven minutes. I know because I was stuck in their meeting room waiting for my next session, and frankly, it was like watching a slow-motion car crash you can't look away from.
The printer worked fine. Someone had just hit the wrong button.
This isn't a story about technical incompetence – it's about communication breakdown. And after seventeen years of running workplace training sessions across Melbourne, Sydney, and everywhere in between, I can tell you this: most workplace problems aren't actually problems at all. They're communication failures disguised as problems.
The Real Issue Hiding Behind Your "Problems"
Here's something that'll probably annoy half the managers reading this: 78% of workplace issues that get escalated to senior management could be solved in under five minutes with proper communication training. I've seen it happen. Repeatedly.
Last month, I worked with a construction crew in Perth who were convinced they had a safety compliance nightmare. Turned out their safety officer was using technical jargon that nobody understood, so workers were just nodding along and hoping for the best. One afternoon of communication skills training later, and suddenly everyone knew exactly what "fall protection protocols" actually meant in plain English.
The safety violations dropped by 90% within two weeks.
But here's where most businesses get it wrong. They treat communication training like it's some fluffy HR exercise. Something you tick off the compliance list between fire safety and sexual harassment briefings. Wrong. Dead wrong.
Communication training is problem-solving training.
Why Your Current Approach Isn't Working
Most managers think good communication means being polite and speaking clearly. That's like saying driving well means staying between the lines. Sure, it's part of it, but you're missing about 80% of what actually matters.
I've lost count of how many times I've walked into a workplace where the boss tells me, "We don't have communication problems – we just need people to follow procedures better." Then I spend thirty minutes talking to their staff and discover that half of them don't even know what the procedures are, and the other half are interpreting them completely differently.
Take email communication, for instance. I worked with one company where the finance team and the sales team were basically sending each other passive-aggressive novels disguised as "professional correspondence." Nobody was actually saying what they meant. Everyone was dancing around the real issues with corporate speak and diplomatic language.
The breakthrough came when we introduced what I call "direct dialogue training." Not rudeness – directness. There's a massive difference, though most Australians struggle with this concept because we've been trained to be overly polite about everything.
The Three-Layer Problem-Solving Framework
Here's what actually works, and why most workplace communication training programmes miss the mark entirely.
Layer One: Information Architecture Before you can solve any problem, you need to establish what information everyone actually has. Not what they think they have, not what they should have – what they actually have.
I learned this the hard way during a disastrous project with a logistics company in Brisbane. For three weeks, I kept trying to fix their "coordination problems" with better meeting structures and clearer reporting lines. Nothing worked. Finally, I discovered that their warehouse management system was showing different inventory numbers to different departments. The sales team thought they had 200 units in stock. The warehouse knew they had 50. The finance team's reports showed 175.
Nobody was communicating badly. They were all communicating perfectly – just from completely different datasets.
Layer Two: Emotional Intelligence This is where things get interesting, and frankly, where most Australian workplaces fall apart spectacularly.
We're brilliant at technical communication. We can write detailed reports, create comprehensive procedures, and follow protocols to the letter. But the moment emotions enter the equation – frustration, disappointment, anxiety, excitement – we turn into communication disasters.
I once watched a project manager spend twenty minutes explaining why a deadline couldn't be met, using charts and graphs and detailed analysis. Technically perfect presentation. But he never once acknowledged that his team was stressed, overworked, and worried about their performance reviews. The real problem wasn't the deadline – it was that everyone felt like failures, and nobody was addressing that elephant in the room.
Six months later, half his team had quit.
The fix? Simple emotional acknowledgment. "I know this situation is frustrating." "I understand you're worried about how this affects your workload." "Let's talk about what support you need." Basic stuff, but somehow we've convinced ourselves that emotions don't belong in professional environments.
Ridiculous.
Layer Three: Solution Architecture This is where communication training becomes problem-solving training. Once you've got accurate information and acknowledged the emotional reality, you can actually design solutions that work.
But here's the kicker – most people skip straight to this layer. They want to jump into brainstorming and action plans without doing the groundwork. It's like trying to build a house without checking if you're on solid foundation.
The Brisbane Breakthrough (And Why It Almost Didn't Work)
About eighteen months ago, I was working with a medium-sized engineering firm in Brisbane who were convinced they needed better project management software. Their projects were running over budget, deadlines were being missed, and client satisfaction was plummeting.
Standard response? Blame the tools.
Instead of immediately shopping for new software, I suggested we spend one week just documenting how information actually flowed through their current projects. Not how it was supposed to flow – how it actually flowed.
The results were eye-opening. Engineers were getting project briefs through a combination of email, Slack messages, hallway conversations, and phone calls. Nobody had the complete picture. Project managers were making decisions based on outdated information. Clients were getting updates that contradicted previous updates.
The software wasn't the problem. The communication protocols were non-existent.
We implemented what I call "single source of truth" communication. Every project decision, every change, every update had to be documented in one central location. Everything else became supplementary. No more Chinese whispers through multiple channels.
Project delivery improved by 60% within three months. Same software, same people, completely different communication approach.
Where Most Training Goes Wrong
Traditional communication training focuses on individual skills. How to write better emails. How to give clearer presentations. How to have difficult conversations.
All useful stuff, but it misses the bigger picture.
Real communication problems are systemic. They're about information flow, decision-making processes, and organisational culture. You can train someone to write perfect emails, but if they're sending them to the wrong people at the wrong time about the wrong issues, you've solved nothing.
I see this constantly with customer service training programmes. Companies spend thousands teaching their staff to be more polite and professional, then wonder why customer satisfaction doesn't improve. Meanwhile, their actual problem is that customer service representatives don't have access to the information they need to solve customer problems effectively.
It's like teaching someone to paint beautifully while they're standing in a dark room.
The Overlooked Power of Structured Disagreement
Here's something that'll make most HR departments nervous: healthy workplaces need structured disagreement.
I'm not talking about personality conflicts or office politics. I'm talking about professional disagreement about ideas, approaches, and solutions. The kind of disagreement that leads to better outcomes.
Most Australian workplaces are terrified of this. We've created cultures where disagreeing with someone's idea feels like a personal attack. So instead of having productive arguments about the best way forward, we have endless "collaborative discussions" where nobody says what they really think and decisions get made by default rather than deliberation.
The companies that master structured disagreement – where people can challenge ideas without challenging relationships – solve problems faster and more effectively than everyone else.
But this requires communication training that goes way beyond "active listening" and "conflict resolution." It requires training people to separate ideas from identity, to argue constructively, and to change their minds gracefully when presented with better information.
The Technology Trap
Speaking of things that annoy people: most workplace communication problems aren't solved by better technology.
Slack, Microsoft Teams, project management platforms, collaboration tools – they're all useful. But they're tools, not solutions. And like any tool, they can make existing problems worse if you don't know how to use them properly.
I worked with one company that had seventeen different communication platforms. Seventeen. Email, Slack, Teams, WhatsApp groups, project management software, customer relationship management systems, intranet announcements, and about ten others I'm probably forgetting.
Their biggest communication problem? Nobody knew where to look for information.
We consolidated everything down to three platforms with clear rules about what went where. Productivity jumped immediately.
The lesson? More communication channels usually mean worse communication, not better.
What Actually Moves the Needle
After nearly two decades of trying every communication framework, methodology, and training approach imaginable, here's what actually works:
Clarity over politeness. Most workplace communication problems stem from people being too polite to be clear. "When you get a chance" instead of "by Friday." "It might be helpful if" instead of "please do this." "I was wondering if perhaps" instead of "I need."
Australian workplace culture makes this worse because we're culturally programmed to avoid seeming pushy or demanding. The result? Nobody knows what anyone actually wants or expects.
Context over content. Most people focus on what they're communicating instead of why they're communicating it. When someone understands the context – why this matters, how it fits into the bigger picture, what happens if it goes wrong – they can make better decisions about everything else.
Systems over skills. Individual communication skills matter, but organisational communication systems matter more. Fix the systems, and individual skills improve naturally. Ignore the systems, and even excellent individual communicators will struggle.
The Perth Paradox
Last year, I worked with a mining company in Perth who had the most polite, professional, technically skilled workforce I'd ever encountered. Their internal communication was flawless. Their reports were detailed and accurate. Their meetings were well-structured and efficient.
And they were bleeding money on every project.
The problem? They were communicating beautifully with each other while completely failing to communicate with their clients. Their internal systems were so sophisticated that nobody could explain their processes to outsiders in simple terms.
This taught me something important: internal communication and external communication require different approaches, but most training treats them as the same thing.
Where We Go From Here
The future of workplace communication isn't about better technology or more training programmes. It's about designing communication into work processes from the beginning instead of trying to fix it afterwards.
This means hiring for communication skills, not just technical skills. It means designing workflows that include communication checkpoints. It means creating organisational cultures where asking questions is rewarded, not penalised.
Most importantly, it means recognising that communication training is really problem-solving training in disguise.
Because at the end of the day, that accounting team arguing about the printer wasn't really arguing about the printer. They were arguing because they didn't have a systematic way to diagnose and solve simple problems together.
Fix the communication, and the problems solve themselves.
Been there? Share your workplace communication disasters in the comments. I guarantee I've seen worse.