Decoding cybersecurity discourse and communication dynamics in financial institutions

This study examines human discourse of cybersecurity in financial institutions and how simple words that are used to talk about threats can either bring a team together or create a division among them. In-deprivation interviews of twelve professionals (technical experts and frontline staff) we found that there is a common theme people have a tremendously different way of thinking about risk. Technical specialists use the terms of the so-called zero-day attacks and DLP controls, and their non-technical co-workers are preoccupied with the issue of the ruined reputation and financial loss. This language barrier poses a barrier to a consistent defense. In our results, we find that communication strategies that help to bridge this gap are the most effective ones. Simulations in training are interactive and thus can create engagement, and too technical and passivity can be frustrating. Finally, the culture and apparent dedication of the leaders of the organization are also vital. A culture of collective responsibility and positive reinforcement will enable a culture of leadership to strike a balance between the required technical action and the ultimate objectives of the business. This study provides a new angle to the already established theory by showing that language in itself is a strong influence in determining the way individuals opt to escape threats. To financial institutions this translates to the fact that simple, focused communication is not just a soft skill, but a strategic necessity. Although the insights of the study were obtained based on a narrow focus group of the U.S. financial industry, the profound and comparative analysis of their discussions offers a rich, legitimate comprehension of meaning and responsibility construction using ordinary words. This study reached theoretical saturation in twelve interviews that were carried out in financial institutions and then analyzed within-role and then comparatively. The sample has high information power and interpretive validity in discourse analysis that is concerned with language and meaning construction as opposed to population representation.