“Measuring peace by the absence of war is a flawed benchmark, so is judging cybersecurity solely by a lack of incidents.”
In boardrooms across industries, directors increasingly grapple with one of the most misunderstood performance indicators in modern governance: cybersecurity effectiveness. At first glance, it’s tempting to celebrate a spotless record: “We haven’t had a breach in years!” Such statements are often met with nods of approval, sometimes even applause. Nevertheless, this interpretation may be dangerously simplistic. The absence of visible incidents does not equate to the lack of risk. Just as geopolitical peace can exist while covert tensions simmer, an organization may appear cyber-secure while vulnerabilities lie undetected beneath the surface.
The real question confronting board members and senior executives is this: Should cybersecurity effectiveness be measured by the mere absence of breaches or by the organization’s proven ability to respond, recover, and adapt during simulated failures?The real question confronting board members and senior executives is this: Should cybersecurity effectiveness be measured by the mere absence of breaches or by the organization’s proven ability to respond, recover, and adapt during simulated failures? In today’s threat landscape, where sophisticated adversaries operate in silence and the dwell time of breaches can span months undetected, passive metrics based on historical silence offer little assurance. It is time to reframe the conversation. In today’s threat landscape, where sophisticated adversaries operate in silence, and the dwell time of breaches can span months undetected, passive metrics based on historical silence offer little assurance. It is time to reframe the conversation.
The Mirage of No Incidents: Comfort or Complacency?
For many organizations, a “clean record” is worn like a badge of honor. Directors may report that their enterprise hasn’t suffered a cyber incident in years, and that all systems are operating as expected. However, beneath this surface-level calm may lie a more troubling reality. The absence of detected breaches may not reflect superior cybersecurity it may highlight insufficient detection capabilities, poor internal reporting, or a culture that discourages vulnerability disclosures. Sometimes, it simply means the attacker has not been discovered yet.
There is also a psychological bias at play. Boards often equate operational continuity with risk control, forgetting that cyber threats are asymmetrical and often invisible. Relying solely on lagging indicators such as breach counts or incident reports creates a governance blind spot. It creates the illusion of security while adversaries may already be inside the perimeter, lying dormant and waiting for the right moment to strike.
This metric also fails to account for internal control weaknesses or third-party vulnerabilities that have not yet been exploited. Worse still, it may unintentionally disincentivize disclosure. Employees and mid-level managers, aiming to protect reputations or avoid scrutiny, may underreport issues, allowing small cracks to widen into serious failures. Over time, the organization becomes more brittle and less resilient, despite what the board believes.
Readiness to Respond: The New Currency of Trust
In contrast, organizations that simulate failure to build strength position themselves for long-term resilience. Simulated cybersecurity failures, whether red-teaming exercises, phishing simulations, or executive tabletop crisis scenarios, offer something historical reporting never can: evidence of capability under duress. These simulations test the response framework, surface decision-making bottlenecks, and reveal whether the right people are empowered with the correct information when it matters most.
Such exercises also force clarity. When executives are required to respond to a mock ransomware event or a data breach simulation, they gain a firsthand understanding of the pressure, complexity, and speed required. Gaps in coordination between cybersecurity teams, communications, legal, compliance, and the board become visible. Moreover, these learnings are actionable; they inform real improvements in incident response plans, crisis communication protocols, and cyber insurance strategies.
More importantly, the board becomes an active participant in resilience. Instead of reviewing quarterly risk dashboards or post-incident summaries, directors ask more strategic questions: Are our simulations evolving to reflect emerging threats? Did our last exercise include board-level decision-making challenges? Have we used the findings to influence policy or investments? These questions elevate cybersecurity from an operational concern to a strategic priority.
Ultimately, readiness is not just a technical capability but a cultural one. Organizations that rehearse failure build a culture of adaptability, cross-functional alignment, and situational awareness. They recognize that the true test of cybersecurity is not preventing every breach but navigating chaos with control, confidence, and speed.
In a world where breaches are inevitable, threats are stealthy, and public trust is fragile, senior leaders must ask themselves: Are we celebrating a false sense of security, or are we actively preparing to lead through crisis?
