The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Security teams and business leaders can use the same label while discussing different subjects, scopes or consequences. That hidden mismatch creates a “two separate conversations”: everyone hears familiar words, yet each person answers a different question. Joshua Goldfarb’s December 2, 2025, SecurityWeek article argues that clarifying the subject first—and then explaining it in the audience’s frame—is essential to making security work understood and supported.
What “two separate conversations” means
The problem is not a technical vulnerability. It is a communication mismatch. One participant may be discussing a specific comment, control or decision, while another assumes the topic is an entire slide, program or strategy. Because the language sounds shared, neither person notices the divergence immediately.
Goldfarb illustrates the pattern with a video-call review of a presentation. He intended to comment on wording in a written note; his colleague understood him to be discussing the slide as a whole. Once they identified the exact referent, the discussion returned to the same subject.
The same pattern appears in security meetings. A broad term can conceal several legitimate questions, and an audience can evaluate the issue through a different frame from the person presenting it.
#1 Best Overall
Why broad security labels create confusion
“AI security” can mean several different jobs
Before debating AI security, participants should specify which of these subjects they mean:
- Using AI to improve security operations: applying AI to activities such as analysis, detection or workflow support.
- Securing AI functionality in an application: protecting an AI-enabled feature that the organization is building or operating.
- Governance and compliance before deployment: establishing the policy, oversight and compliance groundwork needed before introducing AI.
Even within one category, the use case, risk tolerance and requirements may differ. A meeting that does not name the use case can move quickly into disagreement that is really about scope.
Rank #2
“API security” is not one control
API security may refer to different parts of the lifecycle or operating model, including:
- Preventive controls built into development and design
- Vulnerability scanning
- Finding or limiting sensitive-data exposure
- Discovering shadow or undocumented APIs
- Protection while APIs are running
- Detective controls and monitoring
- A broader operational security function
- Integration with existing security operations
These concerns are related, but they are not interchangeable. A request to “improve API security” should therefore become a specific question: Which APIs, which stage, which risk and which decision are under discussion?
How the professional and business frames differ
| Security professional’s frame | Business stakeholder’s frame |
|---|---|
| Technical controls and architecture | Potential effect on revenue |
| Findings, vulnerabilities and operational needs | Customer loyalty and trust |
| Detection, prevention and response capability | Higher costs or disruption |
| Security requirements and implementation work | Regulatory and compliance consequences |
| Current exposure and remediation priorities | Legal, disclosure and long-term strategic risk |
This comparison is a framing aid, not a claim that every executive has identical priorities. The practical distinction is that executives and managers often need to understand the business consequence before they can assess the technical recommendation. A technically accurate explanation can still fail if it assumes knowledge or priorities the audience does not share.
How to prevent the disconnect in a meeting
1. Name the decision or question
Replace a broad agenda item such as “AI security” with a defined question: Are we deciding whether to approve an AI feature, selecting controls for an existing feature, or setting governance requirements for future use? For API security, identify the systems, lifecycle stage and risk being addressed.
2. Check the audience’s starting point
Do not assume that colleagues share the same definitions, technical background or decision authority. Ask what they understand the term to include and what outcome they need from the discussion.
3. State the scope before presenting detail
Open with a short boundary statement: “This discussion covers runtime protection for customer-facing APIs, not the wider API inventory program.” That gives participants a common referent before evidence and recommendations appear.
Best Value
4. Translate the issue into the listener’s frame
Connect a control or finding to consequences the audience must manage. Depending on the situation, that may mean revenue loss, customer retention, cost, compliance, legal or disclosure exposure, or strategic risk. Translation does not mean removing technical accuracy; it means explaining why the technical issue matters to that decision-maker.
5. Confirm alignment before moving on
Use a brief check such as, “Are we deciding on the control, the budget, or the deployment risk?” If answers differ, resolve the scope rather than continuing with parallel arguments.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What this means for security teams and stakeholders
Security programs depend on support from people outside the security function. When a security team discusses controls while business counterparts are weighing customer impact, cost or legal exposure, the mismatch can make approval and progress harder. Clarifying the subject and translating its significance gives stakeholders a better basis for deciding what to fund, prioritize or change.
The approach is deliberately practical rather than a guaranteed formula. Goldfarb presents communication as work that improves through practice. As he writes in SecurityWeek on December 2, 2025: “Communication is an art. It is also a skill that takes work and practice to improve.” The article offers no quantified study of the method’s effect, so its value should be understood as professional guidance, not a measured performance claim.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
