A new industry survey reveals a familiar problem: directors, managers, SVPs, and C-suite executives do not see eye to eye on cyber risk. Each layer has its own read of the biggest challenge—and those reads do not match.
Quick take
- 59% of directors and 51% of managers cite the volume of threats as the top challenge.
- 52% of SVPs say the top real challenge is that the C-suite is uninformed about cyber risk.
- 42% of C-suite respondents cite insufficient funding, 40% cite leadership turnover.
- 80% of respondents worry their IT leaders are under-resourced; 79% see turnover as significant.
- 63% of SVPs view their cyber risk plans favorably, against 37% of executives.
What each layer sees
Directors and managers are buried in threats. They measure their day in alerts, tickets, and incident volume. From that vantage, the problem is upstream: more threats, more work, more noise.
SVPs see something different. They sit between the technical layer and the executive layer, and they report that the C-suite is uninformed. From their seat, the bottleneck is comprehension at the top.
The C-suite sees budget and turnover. Insufficient funding is their top complaint. Leadership churn is second. These are organizational problems, not threat-volume problems.
Who should care
| Leadership Layer | Primary Concern | Risk Lens |
|---|---|---|
| Directors & Managers | Threat volume (51–59%) | Operational: alerts, incidents, daily noise |
| SVPs | C-suite uninformed (52%) | Strategic-adjacent: board comprehension, risk governance |
| C-Suite | Funding (42%) and turnover (40%) | Organizational: budget, talent retention, stability |
Our analysis
The disconnect is not a survey artifact. It is structural. Different layers measure risk through different lenses. Directors count alerts. SVPs count board conversations that did not happen. Executives count dollars and tenure. None of those lenses is wrong. None of them, alone, is complete.
The trade-off in plain sight:** Addressing the director-level problem with more tooling and headcount solves one piece while aggravating the executive-level problem. More tools mean more budget requests. More headcount means competing in a market where 79% say turnover is already a significant issue. Leaders who push for resources without a retention story will hit resistance. Leaders who push for retention without operational proof will lack credibility.
The optimism gap is a governance signal.** 63% of SVPs view cyber risk plans favorably. Only 37% of executives do. One group is either overconfident or shielded from real complexity. The other may be factoring in organizational constraints that the SVPs do not see. Neither view is wrong—but acting on either without reconciling the gap means plans will stall at the layer that controls the budget.
What to watch:** Whether organizations build translation layers into their governance cadence. The survey shows 80% of directors have raised cyber concerns with leadership, but only 30% of C-level respondents say those concerns made it further up the chain. That gap is not about will—it may be about resources. If funding and turnover remain unresolved, the translation gap will persist regardless of intent.
Bottom line
The disconnect will not close on its own. Each layer speaks a different risk dialect, and the organization pays the price when priorities never align. The work is not forcing consensus—it is building a shared vocabulary that survives contact with budget cycles and leadership churn.
Key takeaways
- Different leadership layers measure cyber risk through different lenses; translation is the job.
- The optimism gap between SVPs (63%) and executives (37%) is a governance signal worth investigating.
- Funding and turnover are executive-level risks that technical leaders must surface in business terms.
- Directors raise concerns; fewer reach the top—resource constraints may be the real blocker.
Frequently asked questions
What is the biggest cyber risk disconnect in the survey?
Directors cite threat volume; SVPs say the C-suite is uninformed; executives cite funding and turnover. Three different problems, three different lenses.
How under-resourced are IT security teams?
80% of respondents said their IT leaders are under-resourced, and 79% saw turnover as a significant problem.
Why do SVPs and executives disagree on plan quality?
SVPs measure operational confidence; executives factor in organizational constraints like budget and talent stability. Both views are incomplete alone.
What can a CISO do about the disconnect?
Build a narrative that speaks to each layer's primary concern—threat intelligence for directors, board comprehension for SVPs, budget and retention for executives. Same program, different lead.
Source: cybertalk.org