2

How can I explain technical concepts related to business management who lack background to understand? was put on hold as too broad. There are no comments explaining this, though there's one arguing that it's off-topic. (I disagree with that too.)

How is this question too broad? It's asking how somebody in a specific job function can communicate with a specific category of coworker about topics the other is not expert in. That's a common workplace problem and seems pretty well scoped to me. It's also not asking what to say about said technical topic; this isn't a misplaced InfoSec question.

What's wrong with this question, and what needs to change for it to be reopened?

  • 1
    Just cast the last vote to reopen – David K Jul 13 '16 at 12:22
3

Nothing. It was erroneously closed.

I just voted to reopen it.

  • 1
    Three negative votes? Really? – Old_Lamplighter Jul 20 '16 at 19:24
  • @RichardU: Haters gonna hate. – Jim G. Jul 20 '16 at 19:39
0

I voted to reopen. That was the most nonsensical closure I've seen to date. I agree with you. When the first comment to close was put in, I pretty much echoed what you're saying now. It's not about security, it's about explaining security. Every last IT person I know has had to do this in one form or another.

0

My problem is that it is asking how to explain specific technical details of an issue to management. This is not a general workplace navigation but instead about performing a job function which is off topic per site definition.

  • No, it's just explaining risk, not about explaining a job function. – Old_Lamplighter Jul 13 '16 at 15:33
  • 1
    Explaining the risk is the job function though. I think it the question were more general rather than specifically about a risk of specific security threats it would be more on topic – IDrinkandIKnowThings Jul 13 '16 at 15:51
  • 1
    If you split the hair any finer, you'd have fission. This was a needless close – Old_Lamplighter Jul 13 '16 at 17:22
  • 4
    So if the security part were wrapped up in a big "for example", that would change this for you? I find that concrete examples help produce answers that aren't vague or fluffy, but that doesn't mean the question is only about the specific situation. That was the spirit in which I answered it. – Monica Cellio Jul 14 '16 at 1:24
  • @MonicaCellio I did the same thing. Explaining terms and situations to someone outside a given field is a skill that is important to have. Queries on how to do so are important ones to answer. – Old_Lamplighter Jul 14 '16 at 13:22
  • @MonicaCellio - Once you lose the context though I think it becomes too broad. Which is why I did not edit the question to do something like that in the first place. This really belongs with IT Security SE more than here. But that is my opinion. – IDrinkandIKnowThings Jul 14 '16 at 16:13
  • @RichardU - I agree it is an important job function skill. It is not about navigating the workplace but performing your job duties. How an IT Security person does that is different than how a suport person does that is different from how a sales guy does that is different than how a Business guy does that, etc. – IDrinkandIKnowThings Jul 14 '16 at 16:17
  • 1
    @Chad the basic principle is the same, and fairly universal. You put things in terms that the other person can understand, and what you want them to understand. As someone who had to learn how to speak TWICE, I know how important communication skills are. This question was about communication skills on the job and while the question was about security, the answers are universal. Don't confuse people with jargon native to your field, put things in their terms. – Old_Lamplighter Jul 14 '16 at 16:23
  • @RichardU - I disagree that the answer is not dependant on what you are doing. In this case I doubt either of us will be swayed and I have no desire to argue the point with you further. – IDrinkandIKnowThings Jul 14 '16 at 17:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .