CISO Trainings,
Governance & Risk Management,
Leadership & Executive Communication
Documenting Risks: The Essential Duty for Security Leaders to Combat Retroactive Accountability
A recent post on LinkedIn has sparked conversations within cybersecurity communities, presenting what appears to be a CISO’s resignation letter stating “effective immediately.” This message resonates with security leaders familiar with a troubling pattern: requests for budget allocations repeatedly denied, documented risks escalated but ignored, followed by a breach triggered by a known vulnerability. The inevitable question that arises is: “Why didn’t you prevent this?”
For further reading: Going Beyond the Copilot Pilot – A CISO’s Perspective
Whether the resignation letter is a factual account or an illustrative narrative, it unveils a significant issue within organizational risk management frameworks. Rather than merely depicting a frustrated CISO, it highlights the consequences of complacently accepting risks while enforcing accountability retroactively. This narrative serves as a cautionary tale, underscoring that CISOs must proactively manage their careers amidst these treacherous waters.
Structural Challenges in Cybersecurity
CISOs are positioned within an inherently lopsided environment where cyber risks are persistent, evolving, and frequently severe. In contrast, resources for funding and staffing are limited. Boards and executive teams, often facing their own financial and regulatory pressures, expect security leaders to tackle these risks while working within constraints that lie outside their authority.
This inherent tension is not the issue. Leadership roles involve unavoidable trade-offs. The complications arise when these trade-offs remain unaddressed. Financial limitations often go unstated; risk is assumed rather than explicitly acknowledged. When incidents occur, organizations rewrite history and allocate accountability downward, placing the onus squarely on the CISO.
Such scenarios make the CISO’s role increasingly untenable, especially when retroactive accountability rears its head. The most detrimental inquiry a CISO can face post-breach isn’t “What happened?” but “Why didn’t you prevent this?”—all while mitigation plans were previously rejected due to budget constraints. This predicament reflects a breakdown in governance rather than mere communication failures, as leadership enjoys the benefits of risk acceptance until consequences arise.
Framing Risk Rather Than Expense
An effective strategy for ensuring the CISO’s longevity in a company lies in re-evaluating how security discussions are framed at the executive level. The focus should shift from whether the organization is “secure enough”—a question without a definitive answer—to the selection of a risk posture.
Under an agreed funding level, organizations intentionally accept certain categories of risks with known impacts and operational consequences. Increased funding can diminish certain risks, while lower funding levels can heighten exposure predictably.
This reorientation accomplishes two significant objectives. Firstly, it shifts the dialogue from mere financial justifications to conscious choices regarding risk. Secondly, it creates a forward-looking responsibility, so when a known risk materializes, it is acknowledged as the outcome of a previously documented decision, rather than an unexpected failure.
Shared Governance as a Survival Mechanism
When financial constraints, risk acceptance, and residual exposure become recognized as shared governance responsibilities, the CISO’s position, while challenging, becomes more rational and manageable. The pressure remains, but it aligns with authority, resulting in traceable decisions and a shift from blame to constructive analysis.
Conversely, when these elements are overlooked or distorted post-incident, survival becomes a matter of chance. Some CISOs cope by detaching emotionally; others wear themselves thin. Abrupt departures, much like the sentiment voiced in the LinkedIn letter, may occur when the psychological toll exceeds the professional burden, actions that do little to fortify the organization’s security position.
The Broader Implications for Cybersecurity Leadership
The key takeaway is not that CISOs should resign under challenging conditions; rather, it is crucial for organizations desiring effective, stable security leadership to evolve their governance around risk. Cybersecurity cannot function solely as a symbolic role while simultaneously becoming a repository for unaddressed decisions.
Instances like the viral resignation letter continue to circulate because they encapsulate a pattern recognized by many security leaders but seldom articulated. These narratives are not clarion calls to abandon positions; they serve as a stark warning of the repercussions stemming from one-sided accountability.
Is it possible for a CISO to navigate the traps set by both financial constraints and organizational expectations without suffering significant consequences?
Yes, but this is contingent upon openly recognizing the challenges involved. When financial constraints and risk acceptance are collaboratively managed as governance choices, the role becomes feasible despite its difficulties. Without such acknowledgment, survival will remain a matter of mere luck. This distinction, far from being a philosophical debate, is indeed operational and demands attention from both boards and executives.
