Why security issues escalate faster than most leadership teams expect
Most cyber incidents don’t begin as crises
Most cyber incidents don’t begin as crises
For the most part, these events are handled routinely by security and IT teams, often without wider visibility. At this stage, there is little sense of urgency beyond containment and investigation.
The difficulty is that the line between a technical incident and a business disruption is thinner than many leadership teams expect. What begins as a localised issue can quickly take on wider significance once normal operations are affected.
Early response efforts tend to focus on stopping further damage. Systems are isolated, access is restricted, and indicators of compromise are addressed. From a technical perspective, this can feel like progress.
From an operational perspective, however, uncertainty is just starting to build. Leadership attention turns to impact: how long systems will be unavailable, which processes are affected, and whether commitments can still be met. These questions often surface before clear answers exist.
“Most cyber incidents don’t escalate because of what attackers do, but because organisations run out of certainty before they run out of time.”
Escalation is rarely driven by attacker behaviour alone; it’s shaped by how decisions are made when information is incomplete. Recovery timelines are estimated rather than proven. Dependencies between systems, suppliers, and data flows become visible only once something breaks.
As more stakeholders become involved, coordination becomes harder. Legal, compliance, communications, and executive teams need clarity at the same time security teams are still establishing facts. The pace of escalation reflects this widening circle of uncertainty.
A system outage rarely affects only one function, with reporting cycles, customer interactions, regulatory obligations, and partner relationships often tightly coupled to systems that appear non-critical in isolation.
When these dependencies are not fully understood in advance, even short disruptions can create outsized consequences. The business impact of an incident is therefore often greater than the technical scope would suggest.
When organisations assume a degree of readiness, it’s because they’ve invested in controls, built response plans, and run tabletop exercises. These measures are important, but they do not always reveal how assumptions hold up under real conditions.
Questions such as “Can we restore without reintroducing risk?” or “Who approves external communication?” expose areas where confidence is based on expectation rather than evidence. These gaps are common, even in mature environments.
Incidents are no longer contained within organisational boundaries. Insurers, regulators, customers, and partners increasingly expect early and credible answers. When organisations cannot support confidence with evidence, escalation becomes as much about managing external expectations as resolving the incident itself.
This shift places additional pressure on leadership teams to make decisions quickly, often before investigations are complete.
Post-incident reviews frequently reach the same conclusion. The organisation did not lack security capability, but it overestimated how smoothly it could move from technical response to operational control.
Resilience is not demonstrated by preventing every incident. It is demonstrated by maintaining decision-making, communication, and confidence when normal operations are disrupted.
Organisations that experience less severe escalation usually share one characteristic. They have tested whether assumptions about recovery, accountability, and communication are valid, not just documented.
This doesn’t require large programmes or immediate change. Often, it begins with understanding which decisions would need to be made first, who would make them, and what information they would rely on.
For many leadership teams, these questions only surface after an incident. Increasingly, they are being considered beforehand, as a way to reduce uncertainty when it matters most.
This series is featured in our community because it reflects conversations increasingly happening among senior security and risk leaders.
Much of the industry focuses on tools and threats, with far less attention given to how confidence is formed, tested, and sustained under scrutiny. The perspective explored here addresses that gap without promoting solutions or prescribing action.
Core to Cloud is referenced because its work centres on operational reality rather than maturity claims. Their focus on decision-making, evidence, and validation aligns with the purpose of this publication: helping leaders ask better questions before pressure forces answers.
When a cyber incident is contained, it is often viewed as a success, it feels “successful”.
Building confidence without triggering disruption
When confidence dissolves under scrutiny
What insurers, regulators, and boards expect after an incident
What cyber readiness looks like from the inside
The moment something feels wrong, it's rarely borne out of any certainty.
Operational drag, trust erosion, and regulatory aftermath
Shadow usage, data leakage and invisible risk
Control, confidence, and accountability at scale
Why Security Incidents Are Shaped More By People Than Technology
Assumptions, dependencies, and uncomfortable timelines
Let us know what you think about the article.