Communicating Cyber Risk in a Language Leaders Understand

Security leaders today face a familiar challenge: the work of reducing cyber risk has never been more critical but communicating that value to business leadership can remain difficult. In a recent roundtable discussion among CISOs and BISOs, participants explored what works when engaging boards, CFOs, and executive stakeholders and what continues to fall flat. 

While every organization has its own structure, culture, and maturity, the conversation revealed a set of shared realities: traditional security metrics often miss the mark, financial framing is increasingly essential, and effective leadership requires equal parts risk management and storytelling. 

Metrics Alone Don’t Drive Executive Decisions 

A common theme throughout the discussion was the growing disconnect between the metrics security teams often track and what executives really care about. 

Operational measures such as mean time to detect or respond, service-level agreements, alert volumes, or tool performance can be useful internally, but the attendees widely agreed that these numbers rarely drive decision-making at the board level. 

Executives may appreciate that a security team is measuring performance, but these metrics do not inherently answer the questions leadership is asking: 

• What could happen to the business? 
• How exposed are we? 
• What is the consequence of inaction? 
• Are we investing appropriately compared to peers? 

It shouldn’t be surprising that many leaders shared that technical dashboards and security KPIs are most effective when used as supporting evidence, not as the headline. Boards are not looking for operational detail, they want business clarity. 

Cyber Risk Must Be Framed in Business and Financial Terms 

Cyber risk becomes actionable when it is translated into terms executives already use to evaluate other enterprise threats. 

Instead of focusing on vulnerabilities or adversary tactics, successful leaders frame cybersecurity discussions around: 

• potential financial loss 
• operational disruption 
• revenue impact 
• regulatory exposure 
• contractual risk 
• reputational damage 

The importance of expressing cyber exposure as a percentage of revenue or as a defensible range of potential loss was raised. While these figures are rarely perfect, precision is often less important than clarity. 

Boards do not require exact numbers, they require confidence that leadership understands the risk and is managing it responsibly. 

This business framing was viewed not only as persuasive, but increasingly necessary, as cybersecurity becomes more tightly integrated into enterprise risk and financial governance models. 

Credibility and the CFO Partnership 

CFOs are having a growing influence in security investment decisions and are more receptive to cyber risk discussions than expected, because they already operate in the world of tradeoffs, loss modeling, and risk appetite. When cybersecurity is positioned as another form of enterprise exposure, rather than a specialized technical domain, CFOs can become powerful internal partners. 

Ultimately, aligning with finance enables more productive conversations about: 

• expected loss versus investment 
• prioritization under budget constraints 
• what “acceptable risk” actually means 
• benchmarking against industry peers 

Rather than viewing security as a cost center, position it as a business function that prevents measurable loss and protects operational continuity. 

The discussion also touched on the organizational dynamics that shape risk conversations. There was an emphasis on the value of independence and objectivity when evaluating cyber exposure. 

When security teams are closely tied to business unit budgets or incentives, risk assessments can become politicized. Productive conversations occur when security can serve as a neutral advisor, clearly articulating risk without being perceived as self-interested. 

One theme that resonated strongly was that underfunded business-critical systems should not be viewed as acceptable compromises. Instead, repeated resistance to funding often signals heightened risk: if a system is essential enough that the business cannot tolerate downtime, then failing to invest in its protection is a major red flag. 

In these moments, the role of security is not simply to request budget, but to help leadership understand the consequences of accepting that risk. 

Boards Respond Better to Narrative, Trends, and External Pressure 

No two boards are the same, and their makeup, comfort with technical topics, and recent experiences with incidents or scrutiny can shape what works well for one and doesn’t for another. However, everyone agreed on a consistent insight: boards respond far better to narratives and trends than to raw metrics. 

Instead of reviewing dozens of security measures, boards want answers to broader questions: 

• What are the top risks facing the organization? 
• How has our exposure changed over time? 
• What are we doing about it? 
• Where do we still need investment? 

Several leaders described the value of visual reporting, dashboards that show progress, reduction in noise, improvements in coverage, and trends over time. Regular cadence also matters such as weekly or monthly communication which helps to establish trust and reinforces that security is being actively managed. 

Ultimately, boards want reassurance that cybersecurity is under control, not an avalanche of technical detail. Compliance and regulation also emerged as another critical driver of security investment. 

Frameworks, audits, and upcoming regulatory requirements can provide structure and urgency to budget discussions. Rather than framing requests as abstract improvements, leaders often anchor investment in clear external expectations: 

• industry standards 
• audit findings 
• emerging regulatory obligations 
• third-party contract requirements 

Using gap assessments followed by prioritized roadmaps to guide conversations with leadership allows stakeholders to see sequencing and tradeoffs instead of reacting to a single budget number. 

By presenting security needs as part of a business-aligned roadmap, leaders help executives understand that investment is not arbitrary, it is tied to concrete risk reduction and compliance readiness.

Proving Value Requires Clear Decisions and Efficiency Outcomes 

Across the discussion, it was noted that security leaders are under growing pressure not only to reduce risk, but to demonstrate measurable value. 

With budgets tightening and scrutiny rising, executives increasingly ask: 

• What are we saving? 
• What is working? 
• Are we getting more efficient? 
• Are we reducing noise and cost? 

Leaders shared the importance of showing tool effectiveness through outcomes such as: 

• fewer false positives 
• faster detection and response 
• improved coverage 
• reduced operational burden 
• benefits of automation and AI 

Value realization is no longer assumed and it must be communicated clearly. The ability to demonstrate efficiency gains, not just risk avoidance, is becoming essential in maintaining long-term support. 

Another notable theme was that executive engagement improves when security teams present decisions as options with consequences rather than directives. Instead of saying, “We need to do this,” effective leaders frame the conversation as: 

• Here are the risks 
• Here are the available paths 
• Here is what happens if we delay or decline 
• Here is what investment changes 

This approach reinforces that business leadership owns risk decisions, while security provides expertise, context, and guidance. Explicit risk ownership helps prevent security teams from absorbing accountability for risks the organization has knowingly accepted. 

The roundtable closed with broad agreement that there is no universal framework for communicating cyber value. What resonates depends on organizational culture, board makeup, industry context, and leadership expectations. Some boards demand financial rigor; others focus on resilience and oversight. Some executives want dashboards; others want stories. 

The shared takeaway was that success comes from adaptability: meeting stakeholders where they are, communicating consistently, and grounding cybersecurity in business impact rather than security jargon.