Three Highly Actionable Steps to Strengthen Your Leadership Team’s Cyber Crisis Readiness

Additional resources

Three Simple But Powerful Strategies to Radically Transform Cybersecurity Culture

Disengaged leadership is often at the core of organizations' cybersecurity failures, but that inadequate culture can be turned around through a few straightforward, practical steps.

Three High-Impact Identity Strategies for Security Leaders in the Age of AI

Moving to behavior-based identity authentication is an effective first step is to replacing traditional multi-factor authentication and mitigating identity-related cyber threats.

Sorting Through Security Complexity with CISM

The CISM credential provides security managers with a strong foundation for navigating an increasingly challenging and complex information security landscape.

Cybersecurity Awareness Resources

ISACA offers Information Cybersecurity resources across audit & assurance, governance, enterprise, information security, and risk topics.

A high-impact cyber breach will pressure-test more than your cybersecurity response posture. Ultimately, the business consequences are determined by how effectively your leadership team can coordinate, make decisions and speak with one voice before trust begins to erode.

Over more than 20 years leading cybersecurity and technology teams, I have seen the same script play out repeatedly: organizations invest millions in technical controls, only for a cyber incident to expose gaps in governance, ownership and decision-making.

This article provides practical strategies for business leaders to identify and close critical gaps before a cyber incident turns uncertainty into lasting reputational and financial damage.

Consider the teaching case of Coupang. In late November 2025, South Korea’s largest online retailer disclosed that approximately 4,500 customer accounts had been exposed. Within days, that figure escalated dramatically to 33.7 million accounts. The unauthorized access, later traced to a former employee whose system access keys were never revoked after departure, began in June and remained undetected for almost five months.

That a lapse this basic went undetected for almost five months points to weaknesses across both the detection and governance layers.

The consequences were swift and punishing. Police raided the company’s Seoul headquarters, the head of its Korean business resigned and Coupang set aside more than 1.68 trillion won (approximately US$1.17 billion) to compensate affected customers.

Almost a month later, founder and chairman Bom Kim issued his first public apology, acknowledging that it should have come sooner: "In retrospect, this was a poor judgment. While Coupang worked tirelessly to resolve the situation, I should have expressed my deepest regrets and sincere apologies from the beginning."

This is the pattern that should concern any executive accountable for cyber risk governance. By the time an incident reaches the leadership table, facts are rarely complete. The security team is still sizing up the breach. Legal is weighing notification duties. The board wants assurance before management has certainty.

This is where organizations lose trusttime: the critical window between discovering an incident and demonstrating to stakeholders that leadership is in control, making informed decisions and responding decisively. I introduced the term last year to describe the speed at which organizations reassure people when systems bend. A cyber crisis is the same test under harsher light.

A crisis reveals the accountability you already have. Where decision rights are unclear, the first hour stalls. Where communication waits for consensus, ownership drifts between functions, and silence reads as confusion or concealment. IBM’s 2025 analysis puts the average breach at US$4.44 million and links lower costs to faster identification and containment.

The stronger response is a leadership system designed, tested and rehearsed before a serious incident occurs. Organizations can strengthen their readiness in three practical steps: conduct a cyber crisis readiness assessment this quarter, establish clear executive ownership and decision-making responsibilities, and run a realistic executive tabletop exercise within the next 90 days.

Step 1: Run a leadership readiness audit

An executive cyber response readiness assessment is a powerful way to determine whether the people expected to lead through a crisis actually understand their roles before a serious incident forces them into real-time decisions.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach, but a strong starting point is to assess six key stakeholders: the CEO, CISO, General Counsel, COO, CFO and Communications Lead. Interview each separately and ask the same questions:

1. What decisions are you empowered to make during the first 24 hours of a cyber incident?
2. Which decisions require executive, board or regulatory approval?
3. What information or evidence do you need before making those decisions?
4. Who are your first three calls, and why?
5. What is most likely to delay your ability to act decisively?

The answers are important. The gaps between them are often more revealing.

When the General Counsel believes the regulator should be notified immediately, while the Communications Lead is still waiting for confirmation from IT, you have identified a fault line that pressure will only widen.

Assess responses across four dimensions: decision rights, escalation pathways, communication ownership and information flow. Score each red, amber or green. The colors themselves are not the outcome; the conversations and corrective actions they trigger are.

Most organizations expect to find green and are surprised to find amber.

Amber is dangerous because it rarely fails visibly. Processes appear to work, responsibilities seem clear and decisions get made. Yet they often depend on a single individual, an undocumented assumption or informal knowledge. The weakness only becomes apparent when that person is unavailable, overwhelmed or operating under crisis conditions.

By the end of the assessment, you should have a concise view of where uncertainty, ambiguity and bottlenecks are likely to slow decision-making, along with a prioritized list of critical gaps requiring immediate attention.

Step 2: Build an ownership map before pressure writes one for you

The readiness assessment identifies where decision-making is likely to stall during a cyber crisis. This step addresses those gaps by assigning a single accountable owner to every critical decision before an incident occurs. These decisions may include whether to notify regulators, engage law enforcement, communicate with customers, shut down systems, approve ransom negotiations or brief the board.

When accountability is shared during a crisis, decisions often move more slowly than the threat itself.

Use five columns and focus on the last one. The objective is not documentation; it is clarity. The examples below are illustrative and should be tailored to your regulatory obligations, operating model and risk profile.

The evidence column is what separates this exercise from a generic accountability matrix. It forces each decision-maker to define what information they need before acting, reducing one of the most common causes of delay during a cyber crisis: waiting for perfect information that never arrives.

This is particularly important given the growing regulatory focus on executive accountability. Under the SEC’s cyber disclosure rules, material incidents must be disclosed within four business days of a materiality determination. Under NIS2, management bodies are responsible for overseeing cyber risk management and can be held accountable for governance failures.

Keep the decision map to a single page, obtain executive approval before an incident occurs and review it after every tabletop exercise or major incident.

By the end of the workshop, you should have a clear and agreed view of who makes each critical decision, what evidence they require, and the timeframe within which those decisions must be made.

Step 3: Run an executive tabletop that tests decisions, not theater

The final step is to test the system under pressure.

Bring the same six leaders together for a 90-minute tabletop exercise and force them to make decisions with incomplete information. The objective is not to validate the incident response plan. It is to observe how decisions are made when the facts are still emerging and uncertainty is at its highest.

Create competing pressures. Legal wants caution. Operations want speed. Customers want answers. Regulators want updates. Every stakeholder has a legitimate priority, and leaders must navigate the trade-offs.

Then introduce external pressure before the team feels ready. A regulator requests information. A board member calls for an urgent briefing. A journalist seeks comment. Observe how quickly the team aligns, makes decisions and communicates with one voice.

Capture the outcomes as evidence. Maintain a decision log, document gaps, assign owners, establish remediation dates and schedule retesting. The value of the exercise lies not in the scenario itself, but in the corrective actions that follow.

One signal tells you whether the exercise was effective: if nobody felt uncomfortable, the scenario was probably too easy.

According to IBM’s 2025 Cost of a Data Breach Report, organizations that identify and contain breaches more quickly incur significantly lower breach costs. Tested response plans and cyber crisis simulations remain among the most effective ways to improve that capability.

Together, these three steps transform cyber crisis readiness from a document into a leadership discipline.

Cyber crisis readiness is not measured by the quality of the plan sitting on a shelf. It is measured by how quickly leaders can establish visible control while the facts remain incomplete and the pressure continues to rise.

That is the moment when cyber risk governance stops being oversight on paper and becomes operational leadership under pressure. It is also the moment when trusttime is either protected or lost.