This question (Supervisor without relevant technical knowledge does not communicate project objectives clearly) was closed for lacking a goal we could address. (I was one of the close voters.) The OP has since edited the question to describe his situation more clearly and also included a goal.

In brief, the issue is the OP is deeply technical coming from academia, while his supervisors have been relatively non-technical. This has led to some miscommunication regarding the project objectives, and the OP getting fired. He wants to know how to deal with this situation in future.

I made a further edit, but I felt it could do with some further improvement. In particular:

  • Some of the paragraphs are too long and could be trimmed some more.
  • I relegated the details of OP's task to a footnote. However, we need to consider if it can be removed entirely without losing context.

Are my edits sufficient to get this question reopened? If not, could you suggest (or make) further edits?

  • The cases the OP describes and the goal / question don't really fit. The managers suggest a course of action that is doomed to fail due to their lack of knowledge - maybe the OP's communication problem lays there. When he describes them as having not enough / no knowledge of how to go about the projects, why do they even hope for the supervisors to describe the objectives more clearly? Don't they lack the means to do so, or rather shouldn't they just stick to that and let the OP figure out how to do it, instead of trying to micromanage? May 21, 2018 at 14:26
  • The way it is now seems to me that the OP believes that they suggest inappropriate models etc. because the actual objectives are different from what the OP thinks they are, not because they don't know better - but the whole question only describes the latter scenario. May 21, 2018 at 14:29
  • @AnneDaunted In that case, the OP would benefit from advice on how to convince his boss to "leave this to me". This could be included in an answer. In addition, if the OP is misreading their situation, that should also be covered in an answer.
    – Masked Man
    May 21, 2018 at 14:52
  • It's a struggle because, of course, we are only getting the OP's half of the story - not his employers'. I don't think he's asking the right question and the post deserves a bit of a frame challenge, but it's hard to know what frame to bring it to without knowing the whole story.
    – dwizum
    May 21, 2018 at 14:53
  • @MaskedMan I'll try to take a shot at further editing. I think that things like the footnote should be removed as they are secondary to the issue (communication)
    – DarkCygnus Mod
    May 21, 2018 at 14:54
  • @MaskedMan overall, the question was already well edited. Casted the third vote.
    – DarkCygnus Mod
    May 21, 2018 at 15:04
  • I'm still conflicted. What is the actual issue: Boss's unrealistic expectations? Boss's micromanaging? OP's poor communication skills, such that they can't determine the boss's (perhaps totally realistic) goals? Or are there no issues, and the OP is just so used to acedemia that he can't function "in the real world?" I feel like each of those would have different answers and we don't know which is actually happening.
    – dwizum
    May 21, 2018 at 16:29
  • @dwizum Each of those possibilities are valid, and it is fine for an answer to provide multiple possible reasons for the situation. It is possible that the OP also doesn't know exactly what's going wrong. A helpful answer can make them aware of these reasons, and they can evaluate which one of them holds in their case.
    – Masked Man
    May 22, 2018 at 2:57

1 Answer 1


The question has been edited and is now open again.

You must log in to answer this question.

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