For many CISOs, the fastest way to erode influence inside the organization is to become known as “the department of no.”
While security leaders rarely intend to block the business, the perception often forms when conversations start—and end—with constraints, risk statements, or policy violations.
The more effective approach is not lowering standards or accepting unmanaged risk. It is changing how the conversation begins.
This is where the power of “Yes, and” becomes a practical leadership tool.
Why “No” Damages Security Outcomes
When security defaults to “no,” several things happen:
Business leaders stop engaging early and bring security in late
Risk decisions move underground and outside governance
Security teams are viewed as compliance obstacles, not partners
CISOs lose the opportunity to shape how the business moves forward
Ironically, this increases risk rather than reducing it.
Security does not win by being correct. Security wins by being included.
What “Yes, And” Actually Means in a Security Context
“Yes, and” does not mean unconditional approval.
It means:
Acknowledging the business goal as legitimate
Aligning security to that objective
Introducing guardrails after demonstrating partnership
“Yes, and” reframes the conversation from opposition to collaboration.
Instead of:
“No, you can’t do that—it’s against policy.”
The conversation becomes:
“Yes, I understand why this matters to the business, and here’s how we can achieve it while managing the risk.”
The difference is subtle. The impact is profound.
Practical Examples CISOs Encounter Every Day
Cloud Access Request
No mindset: “No, this SaaS is not approved.”
Yes, and mindset: “Yes, I see how this SaaS accelerates your team, and we’ll need SSO, logging, and data classification before rollout.”
Remote or Third-Party Access
No mindset: “No external access to production.”
Yes, and mindset: “Yes, vendor access can support uptime, and we’ll enforce MFA, time-bound access, and audit trails.”
New Digital Initiative
No mindset: “No, this creates unacceptable risk.”
Yes, and mindset: “Yes, this aligns with growth goals, and here’s what we need architecturally to keep risk within tolerance.”
In each case, security still defines the control requirements. The difference is how they are introduced.
Why This Builds Credibility, Not Weakness
Some CISOs worry that “yes” language signals softness or loss of authority. In practice, the opposite is true.
Consistent use of “Yes, and”:
Builds trust with senior leaders
Positions security as a problem solver
Encourages earlier engagement
Preserves the CISO’s right to escalate when risk is truly unacceptable
When teams feel heard, they accept constraints more readily.
From Policy Enforcer to Business Enabler
CISOs who master this approach are no longer seen as gatekeepers. They are viewed as:
Strategic advisors
Risk translators
Partners in execution
This does not dilute security rigor—it strengthens it by embedding security into business motion rather than resisting it.
A Final Thought for Security Leaders
Every conversation is an opportunity to reinforce the role security plays in enabling the organization’s mission.
Start with yes to the business objective.
Use and to define responsible execution.
That single linguistic shift can be the difference between security being tolerated and security being trusted.
Comments
Post a Comment