The CISO paradox: With great responsibility comes little or no power

The title of chief information security officer suggests that the position would come with a level of authority like that enjoyed by other “chief” officers such as the CEO or CFO – in this case, command over an organization’s security operations, strategy, and resource allocation.

But for most CISOs, true command is often a frustrating illusion. They’re tasked with guarding the organization’s most sensitive information but without the actual clout to make essential decisions autonomously.

For many, the concept of command — having control over decisions, resources, and personnel — is fundamental to effective leadership. In sectors such as the military, command is synonymous with accountability; leaders can be held responsible because they are empowered to act.

For the CISO, this lack of command is more than a challenge, it’s a fundamental flaw.

The reality of the CISO role is that, despite their “chief” status, many lack the power to make unilateral decisions that impact the organization’s security posture. The authority to approve budgets, deploy critical mitigations, and enforce policy changes is often fragmented among other executive leaders.

Decisions about cybersecurity investments, policies, and even staffing often fall under the purview of the CFO, CIO, or even the CEO. For CISOs, this dynamic can feel like being asked to protect the castle without full control over the castle’s defenses. They identify risks, propose solutions, and lay out strategic plans, yet execution hinges on other people’s approval, timelines, and priorities.

CISOs get stuck “selling” the importance of security to their superiors

The absence of command makes cybersecurity decision-making a tedious and often frustrating process for CISOs. They are expected to move fast, to anticipate and address security issues before they become realized. But without command, they’re stuck in a cycle of “selling” the importance of security investments, waiting for approvals, and relying on others to prioritize those investments.

This constant need for buy-in slows down response times and creates opportunities for something bad to happen. In cybersecurity, where timing is everything, these delays can be costly.

Beyond timing, the concept of command is critical for strategic alignment and empowerment. In organizations where the CISO lacks true command, they’re forced to operate reactively rather than proactively.

For example, a CISO may recognize the need for advanced threat detection software or expanded staff training, but without command over budget and resource allocation, they can’t implement these changes directly. Instead, they must justify the expense, convince stakeholders of its importance, and hope it aligns with other business priorities. This dependency undermines their ability to be strategic and forces them to constantly validate the necessity of their role.

Adding to this burden is the challenge of making cyber risk understandable and relatable to other members of the executive team. Cyber risk isn’t as straightforward as financial or operational risk, which can be quantified and assessed using well-established metrics and performance indicators. Cyber risk is often nebulous and abstract—new vulnerabilities arise overnight, threats are constantly evolving, and the repercussions of a cyber-attack can vary wildly.

Even without full authority, CISOs still take the blame

For many executives unfamiliar with cybersecurity, the urgency around cyber risk can be hard to grasp, and this leaves CISOs in a perpetual state of having to justify their strategies. This “convincing” isn’t a typical demand placed on other C-suite roles, and it can make the CISO’s job feel like a continual uphill battle.

What makes this situation especially challenging is that, at the end of the day, CISOs are still held accountable for failures. When a breach occurs or a vulnerability is exposed, it’s the CISO who bears the brunt of the blame. They’re expected to manage and prevent these incidents, but without the authority to enforce necessary measures, they are set up to fail.

It’s a situation that few other leaders in the C-suite experience: a CEO, for example, typically has control over decisions related to the company’s strategic direction and resources, but CISOs are expected to prevent breaches without the same level of control. They have accountability without command, a model that doesn’t set anyone up for success.

This lack of command doesn’t just affect the organization’s security; it also affects the CISO’s relationships, internally and externally. CISOs often need to engage with board members, peers, and stakeholders to explain security initiatives, address potential threats, and discuss risk mitigation strategies.

A visible lack of authority can erode confidence in the CISO

Without command, they can only advise, not enforce. To their peers, this can make the CISO appear as a middle manager rather than a leader, and to the board, it can appear as though the CISO is unable to fully deliver on their mandate. Over time, this erodes both trust in the role and the CISO’s ability to secure the support they need from their organization.

Internally, the absence of command authority can also impact the CISO’s relationship with their own team. Security teams are expected to work with urgency, responding to threats in real-time and implementing new protocols as needed. But when the CISO doesn’t have the authority to make final calls on resources or enforce necessary changes, team morale can suffer.

Teams thrive under leaders who can make confident, unambiguous decisions, but when a CISO must continually defer to others, it can diminish the team’s faith in both the CISO and the organization’s commitment to security.

The consequences of this lack of command have real, tangible impacts on the organization’s overall security posture. If a CISO recognizes a critical need for updated security tools or additional personnel but faces constant roadblocks in securing those resources, it can leave the organization vulnerable to threats. In cybersecurity, waiting for approvals or convincing stakeholders can be the difference between preventing an attack and dealing with a breach.

CISOs need to be set up for success with true command

If organizations want to truly protect themselves, they need to recognize that CISOs require true command. The most effective CISOs are those who can operate with full authority over their domain, free from constant internal roadblocks.

As companies consider how best to secure their data, they should ask themselves whether they are genuinely setting their CISOs up for success. Are they empowering them with the resources, authority, and autonomy to act? Or are they merely assigning a high-stakes responsibility without the power to fulfill it?

Until organizations start treating CISOs as true leaders — complete with command over their domain –cybersecurity will remain a challenging, precarious field, defined as much by its barriers as by its responsibilities.