Understanding the CISO role

If you're on a board or leading a company, you probably already know that cybersecurity risk can't be ignored. But understanding who manages that risk and how well they're positioned to succeed is a different story. Most board members and executives have a high-level understanding of the CISO role and recognize its importance in managing cyber risk. But far fewer ask whether that role is structured and supported in a way that gives the CISO a real shot at protecting the business.

The Risk of Underpowered CISOs

The CISO is often is treated as a behind-the-scenes technologist instead of a senior executive. They're buried under IT, cut off from the board, and expected to secure environments they don’t fully control. Their briefings are filtered through layers of technology leadership, and their authority stops at the enterprise IT perimeter, even if the company’s primary  exposure lies in customer-facing systems or operational technology. These are structural weaknesses that put the entire company at risk.

A strong cybersecurity program starts with a CISO who has the right blend of visibility, credibility, and influence. Too many companies believe that a persuasive cybersecurity leader can be successful without formal authority or executive support. That’s not realistic. A successful cybersecurity program requires more than a politically savvy leader, it requires structural support and thoughtful design of the role itself.

What Makes a CISO Effective

The most effective CISOs I’ve worked with weren’t just business-savvy or technically fluent, they were both. They understood their security architecture well enough to engage with engineers on detailed risks and tradeoffs, and they could just as easily sit in a room with business leaders to talk about enabling new initiatives safely. They weren’t hands-on practitioners anymore, but they knew how to ask the right questions and had the credibility to push back on their teams when necessary. And just as importantly, they built relationships and were respected by their peers across the business.

But I’ve also seen CISOs struggle because they had no seat at the table when key decisions were made and no access to the board except through brief updates filtered through the CIO. In some cases, the CISO was deliberately siloed, with no clear way to communicate or escalate cybersecurity risks. The result: leadership and the board received a distorted view of security posture, with risks understated or oversimplified. That’s not a CISO failure, it’s a governance failure.

Reporting Lines vs. Governance Clarity

Many security professionals argue that the CISO should report directly to the CEO. While that may work in some organizations, it’s often not realistic. In my experience, reporting structure matters less than governance clarity. What boards and executive leadership should focus on is whether the CISO has:

• Enough authority to govern security across all relevant environments (IT, OT, customer-facing systems, etc.);
• Independence from other IT and technology leaders who have conflicting incentives (e.g., CIO or CTO);
• Unfiltered access to senior leadership and the board when needed.

Even well-intentioned CIOs can end up filtering the CISO’s message. They have their own initiatives and strategic goals to communicate, and security may get compressed into one or two slides sandwiched into a broader IT presentation. That’s not politics or sabotage; it’s a function of priorities and framing. But the result is the same: the board doesn’t get a clear picture of cybersecurity risk.

Boards should have the CISO brief them directly. I’ve seen cases where the CISO reports to the CIO but delivers cybersecurity updates to the board without the CIO in the room. This ensures the board gets an unfiltered view of the organization’s cybersecurity risks. That kind of direct access signals trust, reinforces accountability, and leads to a clearer understanding of the company’s security posture.

Board Access and Briefing Cadence

A quarterly briefing cadence is typical and appropriate. It gives the board enough touchpoints to stay informed, spot trends, and provide oversight without getting mired in operational details. Unfortunately, some companies only bring in the CISO annually. That’s not enough to keep the board educated, build trust, and position the CISO as a senior leader with responsibility for reporting on cybersecurity risk.

In most companies, these briefings happen at the audit committee level rather than with the full board. That’s reasonable, especially if the audit committee already handles enterprise risk. What matters more than the audience is that the CISO is in the room, speaking directly without layers of translation from IT or legal.

When a serious incident occurs, especially one that potentially rises to the level of SEC disclosure, the CISO and other leaders should brief board the board outside of a quarterly update. The general counsel or another executive will likely lead the incident briefing, especially if SEC materiality, regulatory disclosures, or legal liability are primary concerns, but the CISO should be present and participating.

Why Technical Depth Still Matters

Another critical and often misunderstood factor is technical depth. In large enterprises with mature programs, the CISO May operate more as a pure executive, focused on governance, budgeting, and cross-functional coordination. But in smaller organizations or companies with immature security programs, a CISO who lacks technical grounding is likely to struggle.

In smaller environments, a “player-coach” CISO may be the best fit; someone who can design architecture, lead implementation, and still function as an executive voice on risk. As the program matures, the demands  of the CISO role will shift and the organization may outgrow its first CISO. The person who built the program may not be the right fit to run it as it scales, especially if their strength lies in hands-on technical execution rather than organizational leadership. That evolution isn’t a failure; it’s a natural part of growth.

Conclusion

Board members and executives need to evaluate whether their CISO is positioned to lead. Does the role have the right blend of authority, independence, and technical and strategic capacity? Is the board hearing directly from the person responsible for cybersecurity risk or only getting filtered summaries from IT leadership?