While discussing a bit of corporate dysfunctionality, a colleague suggested that communications training was needed. That's a standard corporate response -- always true, but almost never acted upon.
Being able to communicate is all well and good. After all, a worker can't effectively carry out direction if the direction to be followed is not expressed well enough for the worker to know what to do. But that's not all there is to making an organization function. I suggested that there are really 3 topics that should be covered in this non-existent training program.
1. Relationships
The first topic is how to build releationships of trust and respect. I've seen some attempts in this direction, but most of them tend toward the warm fuzzies and the hope that we can all just get along. That's not what I mean.
From an organizational point of view, the value of trust and respect is that such relationships induce a person to want to perform well and in conformance with the desires of the other person. In a context of trust and respect, I will accept your decision about what tasks ought to be done and when. Absent trust, I would want to reexamine each decision and would tend not to conform until your judgement is confirmed by independent evidence. That is, at the least, inefficient. Without respect, I will tend to disregard or even subvert every directive I receive.
The fundamental mutuality of respect is a key element here. The boss will not be well respected if the boss does not respect the other members of the team. The team will not trust management if low-value employees are treated as if they were highly valued by management.
Even if I understand exactly what you want from me, it communication is perfect, it does not follow that I will perform as you desire. This topic is about creating the relationship in which people will want to work effectively together.
2. Communication
Naturally, trust and respect require the practice of communication. Then, to achieve any specific goal, the objectives, the task assignments, and the personal roles of all involved need to be communicated. That is, they must be shared, they must be made common to the participants.
I'm not sure that communicating can quite be taught; there are always some people who don't communicate even when they know how to do it. And without trust and respect we may not want to communicate. Merely teaching how to share ideas and information is not sufficient alone, but it is necessary.
Clearly it is possible to teach the techniques of communication, to answer such questions as: How can I express my thoughts clearly? How can I vary my communication to account for differences in language skills, background, experience, and modalities of learning? What signs should I look for to know whether or not the content has been successfully communicated? When should I try again? When should I back off and wait?
There are a lot of programs being sold to improve communication, and some of them work. If at the end of participating in such a program you can objectively evaluate whether the program successfully communicated the skills needed for better communication, then I say it was a success. If not ... better to look for another program.
3. Thinking clearly
Being able to communicate well is important; wanting to communicate well is important; but having something to say is essential. You have to have an idea in order to communicate it.
(I almost said you have to have an idea before you communicate, but that is not true. It is possible, and sometimes desirable, to develop the idea during the process of communication.)
My experience is that many people never have a clear thought. For many people, all communication is purely connotative; nothing specific is ever denoted in their speech or writing. They may connote beautifully (although most do not) but at best the picture they paint is abstract art. It could be nice to look at, but by itself it doesn't inspire a concrete response.
The category in which this topic falls is "critical thinking". Before, during, and after an effort in communication, it is valuable to examine whether what is being said is relevant to achieving the goal, whether the information is sufficient to do the work, whether assumptions are being made which ought to be tested, whether there are ambiguities that need to be further resolved, and whether the totality of what is being said self-consistent.
Thinking probably can't be taught directly, but the techniques of critical thinking can be taught and the practice of critical thinking can be modelled, recognized, and honored.
I don't think I'm particularly qualified to teach any of these 3 topics to corporate employees, but I wouldn't mind having an opportunity to try. Even if my students didn't learn what they need to know I would have fun learning the subject in new ways.