Related Posts
by Lisa Ventura MBE FCIIS
Having recently completed a comprehensive project analysing phishing simulation data, I’ve observed a troubling pattern that every CISO should consider: we’re still treating people as the weakest link in cyber security rather than recognising them as our most adaptive defence layer. As we move into 2026, this fundamental misunderstanding of human factors in security continues to undermine even the most sophisticated technical controls.
The Sophistication Gap Is Widening
The gap between social engineering attacks and organisational security awareness capabilities isn’t just persisting; it’s accelerating. Attackers now leverage AI-generated deepfakes, highly personalised targeting through data aggregation, and increasingly exploit neurodivergent communication patterns and cognitive differences that traditional training never considers. Meanwhile, organisations persist with the same compliance-theatre approaches that have demonstrably failed for years.
From my journalism background to cyber security leadership, I’ve learned that the best security controls in the world are worthless if you can’t explain why they matter. More critically, they’re useless if your workforce doesn’t feel psychologically safe enough to engage with them.
Trauma-Informed Security: Not Soft, Strategic
One of the most significant shifts needed in 2026 is moving to trauma-informed security design. Punitive “gotcha” phishing simulations trigger shame responses that actually decrease voluntary reporting. When employees fear blame, they hide mistakes rather than reporting them. This isn’t a soft HR concern; it’s a strategic vulnerability.
In my work implementing phishing simulation campaigns across multiple European jurisdictions using platforms like KnowBe4 and Cofense, I’ve documented measurable results: up to 90% reduction in phish-prone behaviours through neurodivergent-friendly design principles. The key isn’t more aggressive testing; it’s creating environments where employees feel safe enough to ask questions and report suspicions.
Accessibility Isn’t Optional; It’s Foundational
Security awareness that doesn’t account for neurodivergent employees, non-native speakers, or different learning styles will fail 15-20% of your workforce from the start. This isn’t about ticking diversity boxes; it’s about recognising that inclusive security design is more effective security design.
Through developing accessibility-focused micro-learning courses, I’ve seen how culturally adapted content (not just translations, but actual cultural adaptation) dramatically improves engagement and behaviour change. Monthly themed campaigns with bite-sized, contextual content consistently outperform annual compliance exercises.
Cross-Cultural Security Orchestration
For organisations operating across borders, the challenge isn’t just technical integration; it’s cultural security orchestration. What works in Scandinavia doesn’t translate to Southern Europe. UK regulatory frameworks differ dramatically from other European countries. With NIS2 implementation variations and regional AI regulations creating further complexity, CISOs face the challenge of maintaining consistent security posture whilst respecting regional autonomy.
The solution lies in building distributed Security Champion networks using three-tier volunteer structures (Champions, Ambassadors, Advocates) that can localise global security messaging whilst maintaining strategic consistency. Regional security councils that feed intelligence upward whilst cascading strategy downward create feedback loops that turn security incidents into learning opportunities without blame attribution.
The Storytelling Imperative
Boards don’t want technical briefings; they want business impact stories. CISOs who can’t translate technical risk into compelling narratives will lose budget battles and fail to drive cultural change. This isn’t about dumbing down complexity; it’s about contextualising threat intelligence in ways that drive executive action.
Use concrete scenarios rather than abstract threat models. Translate CVE scores into “here’s what we could lose” narratives. Move from “security team enforces” to “security team enables” by creating programmes that distribute expertise without centralising burden.
The Threats We’re Actually Facing
AI-powered social engineering has moved beyond theoretical concern to operational reality. Deepfake voice and video attacks targeting executives, LLM-generated phishing that adapts to recipient responses, and automated reconnaissance creating hyper-personalised attack vectors all demand responses that go beyond signature-based detection.
Third-party risk has become first-party problem as interconnected systems create cascading failure points. SaaS sprawl creates shadow IT that bypasses security controls. But perhaps most concerning is the insider threat evolution: not malicious actors, but well-meaning employees using AI tools that exfiltrate data, shadow AI adoption bypassing security governance, and productivity pressure driving risky shortcuts.
Technologies That Matter in 2026
Detection and response must take priority over prevention alone. Extended Detection and Response (XDR) that correlates signals across email, endpoint, cloud, and network gives security teams the context they need. Security Orchestration, Automation and Response (SOAR) reduces alert fatigue and response times. Behavioural analytics identify anomalies without requiring signature updates.
Identity has become the new perimeter. Zero Trust architecture implementation needs to move from buzzword to reality. Passwordless authentication and phishing-resistant MFA provide foundation. Privileged Access Management with just-in-time elevation limits exposure windows.
Proactive threat intelligence through dark web monitoring for credential exposure, attack surface management showing what attackers see, and threat intelligence platforms that contextualise global threats to your specific environment all contribute to defensive advantage.
Metrics That Actually Matter
Move beyond click rates to track voluntary reporting, Security Champion engagement, near-miss sharing, and cultural indicators of security-positive behaviour. Combine quantitative data (phishing click rates) with qualitative insights (why did they click?). Present trends, not just snapshots. Show improvement journeys, not failure moments.
Mean time to detect matters, but so does mean time to report. If employees don’t feel safe reporting suspicious activity immediately, your detection capabilities become academic exercises.
Leadership Capabilities for 2026
The organisations that will thrive are those that recognise security isn’t just about technology; it’s about people, culture, communication, and adaptation. Security leadership requires technical expertise, strategic thinking, cultural intelligence, and the ability to tell stories that drive action.
Create psychological safety in security culture through executive sponsorship and consistent messaging that security is everyone’s responsibility, but failures are learning opportunities. Invest in inclusive security design that accounts for neurodiversity, different communication styles, language barriers, and varying levels of technical literacy.
Develop strategic communication skills across security teams. The technical skills are table stakes; communication skills are the differentiator. Implement measured, continuous improvement through ongoing, data-informed security awareness programmes that track behaviour change over time, not just completion rates.
For multi-national organisations, develop security frameworks that allow for regional adaptation whilst maintaining strategic consistency. Build networks of regional security champions who can localise messaging and identify emerging regional threats.
The Bottom Line
The most sophisticated EDR solution can’t compensate for employees who don’t feel safe reporting suspicious emails. The best Zero Trust architecture won’t help if your board doesn’t understand why you need budget for it.
It’s not enough to be right about the threats; you have to be compelling about the solutions. That requires combining technical expertise with human understanding, strategic vision with practical empathy, and global standards with regional sensitivity.
The future of cyber security leadership lies not in building higher walls, but in creating cultures where security becomes everyone’s responsibility because everyone feels empowered to participate. That’s the shift we need to make in 2026 and beyond.