A CISO and CIO do not need to agree on every security or technology decision. The relationship is in trouble when disagreement repeatedly stalls decisions, information stops flowing, or security concerns surface only after they have become costly problems. These 12 observable signs can help the two leaders—and their executive teams—identify where collaboration is failing and what to change.
How to tell disagreement from a broken partnership
Conflict can be productive: it can expose tradeoffs between delivery speed, cost, business needs and risk reduction. The stronger warning is an inability to make progress or reach agreement. Christine Lee, Gartner vice president of research and content leader for cybersecurity research, put it this way: “it’s the inability to make progress or get to agreement that is a sign the CIO-CISO relationship is broken.”
Gartner findings cited in a December 1, 2025 CSO article illustrate that distinction, but they should not be treated as current prevalence estimates: the article does not specify the underlying research year for these figures. Around a third of CISOs with less than two years of experience reported conflict with their CIOs on key security areas; half of CISOs with at least five years of experience reported conflict in most of those areas, including cyber resilience and enterprise cyber risk appetite. Yet 87% of experienced CISOs described their relationship with the CIO as “good” or “excellent” when resolving conflicts. The practical test is not whether the leaders disagree, but whether they can surface the issue, make a decision and carry it out.
12 signs the CISO-CIO relationship may be broken
1. The CIO routinely ignores the CISO’s recommendations
The CISO’s input may be acknowledged in meetings, then set aside without a reasoned decision or a workable alternative. Aimee Cardwell, CISO in residence at Transcend and former UnitedHealth Group CISO, describes this pattern as input being heard and then ignored. A CIO can reject a recommendation; the warning sign is a repeated pattern in which security expertise has no meaningful influence.
#1 Best Overall
2. Disagreements stall decisions or trigger repeated escalation
Some decisions warrant executive review. But if the same disputes cycle through meetings without an owner, a deadline or a decision, routine work becomes stuck. Treat escalation as a way to resolve a clearly framed tradeoff—not as the only way the two leaders can make progress.
3. The CIO withholds information the CISO needs
A CISO cannot assess exposure or plan controls without timely information about technology strategy, projects, architecture and operational changes. Cardwell calls the CIO’s failure to share necessary information “a gigantic red flag.” If the information is sensitive, agree on a suitable channel and access rules rather than leaving the security leader uninformed.
4. Board reporting obscures material security risk
It is reasonable to make a board presentation concise and clear. It is not reasonable to suppress material facts or alter the CISO’s message so decision-makers cannot understand the risk. The CISO needs an appropriate route to communicate significant exposures, decisions required and progress on remediation.
5. The CIO weakens the CISO’s credibility or access
Watch for repeated efforts to discredit the CISO’s advice, block access to other executives or the board, or prevent security priorities from receiving executive sponsorship. A CIO should be able to challenge a proposal without shutting down the CISO’s ability to explain its business implications.
Recommended Free Tools
Rank #2
6. Security joins technology initiatives too late
When the CISO is brought into a project only near launch, security becomes a late-stage hurdle and teams may have to redesign systems or accept unresolved risk. Dale Hoak, CISO at RegScale, describes a healthier pattern: “In a good relationship, there are no surprises because you’re having continuous conversations and you’re sharing dashboards.”
7. The two leaders rarely speak directly
Email, large meetings and messages passed through staff can handle routine updates, but they are poor substitutes for regular one-on-one discussion of priorities and friction. Without direct contact, small misunderstandings can persist until a project, incident or board discussion forces them into the open.
8. They do not understand each other’s priorities or constraints
A CIO may be accountable for service delivery, reliability and delivery schedules; a CISO may be focused on exposure, resilience and control effectiveness. If either leader treats the other’s mandate as an obstacle rather than a legitimate constraint, they will struggle to set shared priorities or define success.
9. Ownership is unclear and blame replaces coordination
Security and technology work often crosses organizational boundaries. If neither leader can say who owns a control, remediation task, operational decision or approval—or if each blames the other when it fails—gaps and duplicated effort are likely. Shared work still needs named decision-makers and accountable owners.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →10. Technology purchases overlap or security tools are chosen without the CISO
Overlapping products can waste budget and create integration or management burdens. The opposite problem also matters: a CIO may dictate a security product or vendor without giving the CISO a chance to assess whether it fits the threat, architecture and operating model. Procurement should involve both leaders where technology and security responsibilities intersect.
11. Cyber hygiene remediation is not prioritized
Security teams may identify and rank vulnerabilities, but the organization also needs a practical process to assign, schedule and verify remediation. If high-priority fixes repeatedly lose out without an explicit risk decision, the CIO-CISO partnership is not translating identified exposure into action.
12. Products repeatedly reach release with security flaws or control gaps
Recurring security problems discovered just before release—or after deployment—can indicate that design and delivery processes did not include security early enough. Sara Madden, CISO at Convera, captures the question leaders should ask: “The question then is, ‘Why didn’t we figure that out during the product design lifecycle,’ and the answer is usually poor collaboration between IT and security.”
What the warning signs can cost the organization
A strained partnership is not just an executive-relations issue. It can show up as missed project deadlines, avoidable rework, unresolved vulnerabilities, unclear risk acceptance and security controls that arrive too late to work well. Marnie Wilking, CSO at Booking.com, said: “When technology and security leaders are not on the same page, it becomes clear in both operations and outcomes, from missed project deadlines to increased vulnerabilities.”
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
These outcomes are reasons to investigate how decisions and workflows operate, not proof that every delay or defect stems from personal conflict. A late fix may have several causes; the useful question is whether the leaders can jointly identify the cause, assign ownership and agree on a response.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Steps to repair the CISO-CIO relationship
1. Agree on how the organization makes risk decisions
Bring the CIO, CISO, relevant C-suite leaders and, where appropriate, the board into a discussion of enterprise risk appetite. Clarify which risks are acceptable, who can accept them, what requires escalation and how exceptions are documented. This turns a recurring argument about individual controls into a decision against an agreed organizational position.
2. Connect security planning to business strategy and the IT roadmap
Review upcoming initiatives early enough for security requirements to influence design, budgets and delivery plans. Gartner’s October 27, 2025 abstract on the “CIO-CISO Strategy Communication Gap” describes a two-way problem: CISOs say CIOs do not communicate IT strategy effectively, while CIOs feel CISOs struggle to connect cybersecurity investments to business outcomes. Make both sides’ plans and assumptions visible, then identify where they depend on one another.
3. Define ownership for shared work
For recurring responsibilities—such as vulnerability remediation, secure design reviews, incident readiness and vendor selection—write down the accountable decision-maker, the teams responsible for execution, expected handoffs and escalation route. Explicit ownership prevents shared accountability from becoming nobody’s responsibility.
Best Value
4. Put direct conversations and shared visibility on the calendar
Schedule recurring CIO-CISO one-on-ones and use them to discuss decisions, emerging risks, roadmap changes and obstacles. Add ad hoc conversations when a major initiative or incident warrants them. Share dashboards that show the work both leaders need to track, such as priority remediation and project security milestones; use them to prompt decisions rather than as a substitute for dialogue.
5. Learn each other’s priorities and define shared measures of success
Ask what outcomes each leader is accountable for, which constraints matter most and what evidence would show that a decision worked. Gartner’s July 21, 2025 abstract on “4 Critical CIO-CISO Conversations to Align IT and Cybersecurity” emphasizes aligning priorities, defining success measures and balancing cost with business needs. The abstract summarizes the tool but does not provide its full framework.
6. Present security as a way to reach the goal safely
Instead of stopping at “no,” describe the risk and offer feasible routes forward, including their cost, timing and security tradeoffs. Hoak’s advice is: “Instead of leading with ‘no,’ lead with ‘How do we get there securely,’” A useful discussion makes the decision axes explicit: speed versus risk reduction, cost versus business value, early design work versus late remediation, and centralized control versus clear shared accountability. These are practical comparison points, not a prescribed scoring formula.
7. Protect accurate board communication and appropriate access
Agree on how the CIO and CISO will prepare board updates, clarify technical language and resolve disagreements about recommendations. Editing for clarity should not remove material risk information. Establish how the CISO can raise significant concerns directly when needed, while coordinating with the CIO so the board receives a coherent account of business context, exposure and decisions required.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →What reporting-line statistics do—and do not—show
A Gartner 2025 abstract reports that 74% of CISOs reporting to a CIO or CTO did not want that reporting arrangement. Respondents believed reporting outside IT would improve their effectiveness and influence; the abstract does not disclose sample size or field dates. This is evidence of a reported preference, not proof that moving the CISO outside IT guarantees better security or a healthier CIO-CISO relationship. Organizations should evaluate reporting lines alongside actual access, authority, information flow and decision rights.
Why disciplined information-sharing matters
NIST Special Publication 800-150, Guide to Cyber Threat Information Sharing, published October 4, 2016 and updated May 4, 2021, explains how sharing cyber threat information can improve an organization’s security posture and that of others. It addresses goals, sources, scope, rules and sharing relationships. It is foundational guidance on information-sharing, not a study of CIO-CISO relationships; its relevance here is that useful collaboration depends on deliberate expectations for what information is shared, with whom and under what rules.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
