A CISO and CIO can disagree about risk, cost, timing, or technology without having a broken relationship. The warning sign is repeated inability to resolve those disagreements, share information, or make progress together. Look for the patterns below—not a single tense meeting—and use them to identify what needs to change.
How to tell whether the partnership is in trouble
The CIO is accountable for technology delivery and operations; the CISO is responsible for helping the organization understand and manage cyber risk. Those priorities can collide. Gartner research cited by CSO found that 87% of experienced CISOs described their relationship with the CIO as “good” or “excellent” when resolving conflicts. The figure is attributed to Gartner, but CSO does not specify the underlying research year. It supports an important distinction: conflict can be productive when the leaders can reach decisions.
Christine Lee, Gartner vice president of research and content leader for cybersecurity research, put the distinction this way: “it’s the inability to make progress or get to agreement that is a sign the CIO-CISO relationship is broken.” The signs below are observable behaviors and outcomes, not a formal diagnostic test. A pattern across decisions, projects, and communications matters more than an isolated disagreement.
12 signs the CISO-CIO relationship may be broken
1. The CIO repeatedly ignores the CISO’s recommendations
A recommendation can be rejected for legitimate business reasons. The concern is a recurring pattern in which the CISO’s input is acknowledged and then disregarded without a clear decision, rationale, or alternative plan. Aimee Cardwell, CISO in residence at Transcend and former UnitedHealth Group CISO, describes this as a sign that security advice is not meaningfully informing decisions.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems#1 Best Overall
2. Disagreements stall decisions or routinely escalate
Healthy debate makes tradeoffs visible. A relationship is under strain when routine disputes cannot be resolved between the two leaders, decisions remain stuck, or escalation becomes the default route to action. The question is not whether they disagree, but whether they can agree on a path forward.
3. The CIO withholds information the CISO needs
A CISO cannot assess risk or plan controls without timely information about technology plans, systems, incidents, and changes that affect security. Cardwell calls a failure to share needed information “a gigantic red flag.” The practical test is whether security leaders learn about material changes early enough to advise, rather than after decisions are already made.
4. Board communication is edited to conceal material risk
Helping a CISO make a board presentation clearer is different from blocking the CISO’s message or suppressing facts the board needs to understand. If material risks are repeatedly softened or omitted, leadership loses the ability to make informed decisions and oversee exposure.
5. The CIO undermines the CISO’s credibility or access
Watch for repeated efforts to diminish the CISO’s standing, obstruct access to other executives or the board, or withhold advocacy for security priorities. The issue is not whether every security request receives support; it is whether the CISO can participate credibly in decisions that affect risk.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Rank #2
6. Security joins technology initiatives too late
When the CISO is brought into projects only after key choices are settled, security tends to become a late-stage add-on. That can force teams to revisit architecture or remediate avoidable weaknesses. Dale Hoak, CISO at RegScale, describes a better pattern: “In a good relationship, there are no surprises because you’re having continuous conversations and you’re sharing dashboards.”
7. The two leaders have no regular direct conversations
Email, group meetings, or messages relayed through subordinates are poor substitutes for recurring one-to-one discussion of priorities and decisions. Without direct contact, misunderstandings can persist and important context can be lost. Project work and incidents also call for ad hoc conversations beyond the regular cadence.
8. Each misunderstands the other’s priorities or constraints
The CIO may be focused on service delivery, cost, reliability, and deadlines; the CISO may be focused on exposure, controls, and resilience. If either leader treats the other’s concerns as irrelevant rather than as constraints to balance, plans are more likely to conflict. Gartner’s October 27, 2025 abstract describes this communication gap in both directions: CISOs say CIOs do not communicate IT strategy effectively, while CIOs feel CISOs struggle to link cybersecurity investments to business outcomes.
9. Ownership is unclear, or the leaders blame one another
Shared responsibilities can fall into gaps when no one knows who decides, executes, or reports progress. The opposite problem—overlapping authority—can produce duplicate work and conflict. If missed controls or delivery problems repeatedly turn into blame rather than a clear assignment of responsibilities, the operating model needs attention.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →10. Technology purchases overlap or security tools are dictated
Duplicated purchases can waste money and complicate operations. It is also a warning sign if the CIO chooses security products or vendors without allowing the CISO to assess whether they fit security requirements. The goal is not unilateral control by either executive: technology and security leaders need a decision process that accounts for business fit, integration, and risk.
11. Cyber hygiene is consistently deprioritized
Security teams may identify and prioritize vulnerabilities, but risk remains if remediation does not receive the ownership, resources, or schedule needed to address it. A continuing backlog without agreed exceptions or a risk-based plan suggests the leaders have not aligned on how to manage exposure.
12. Products repeatedly launch with security flaws or control gaps
Recurring flaws discovered near release can indicate that security was not included in design and delivery decisions. Sara Madden, CISO at Convera, says: “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.” One defect does not prove a relationship problem; a repeated pattern is the stronger signal.
What the available figures do—and do not—show
CSO’s December 1, 2025 feature reports several Gartner findings about CISO-CIO conflict, but does not state the underlying research year for the first three figures. They should not be read as current prevalence estimates.
| Reported finding | How to interpret it |
|---|---|
| Around a third of CISOs with less than two years of experience reported conflict with their CIOs on key security-related areas. | Gartner finding reported by CSO; underlying research year is not stated in the feature. |
| Half of CISOs with five or more years of experience reported conflicts in most of those areas, including cyber resilience and enterprise cyber risk appetite. | Gartner finding reported by CSO; underlying research year is not stated in the feature. |
| 87% of experienced CISOs described their relationship with the CIO as “good” or “excellent” when resolving conflicts. | Gartner finding reported by CSO; underlying research year is not stated. It illustrates that conflict and a functioning relationship can coexist. |
| 74% of CISOs reporting to a CIO or CTO did not want that reporting arrangement. | Gartner’s 2025 abstract reports this preference and says respondents believed reporting outside IT would improve effectiveness and influence. The abstract does not provide sample size or field dates; it does not establish that a particular reporting line guarantees better security or a healthier partnership. |
Steps to repair the relationship
1. Agree on the organization’s risk position
Bring the CIO, CISO, wider C-suite, and board into agreement about the organization’s enterprise risk appetite and the risks it is willing to accept. This gives technology and security decisions a shared reference point instead of leaving each leader to apply a different threshold.
2. Connect security plans to business strategy and the IT roadmap
Make security priorities part of planning, not a review that happens after technology choices are fixed. Gartner’s October 27, 2025 abstract on the CIO-CISO strategy communication gap highlights the need for CIOs to communicate IT strategy and for CISOs to connect security investment to business outcomes. Gartner’s available July 21, 2025 abstract on CIO-CISO conversations likewise describes aligning priorities, defining success measures, and balancing cost with business needs; the abstract does not expose its full framework.
3. Define decision rights and shared responsibilities
For work that crosses IT and security, agree who recommends, who decides, who implements, and who reports results. Make exceptions and accepted risks explicit. Clear roles help prevent both gaps and duplicated ownership from turning into blame.
4. Establish a direct communication rhythm
Schedule recurring CIO-CISO one-to-ones and add contact when initiatives or incidents require it. Bring the relevant teams together for work that spans both functions, and use shared dashboards to surface status, risk, and decisions. NIST’s SP 800-150, Guide to Cyber Threat Information Sharing, published October 4, 2016 and updated May 4, 2021, explains how structured sharing can improve an organization’s security posture. It is guidance on threat-information sharing, not a study of executive relationships.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Best Value
5. Learn each other’s priorities and constraints
Discuss what each leader must deliver, what limits their options, and what outcomes count as success. Use those conversations to make choices across real tradeoffs: speed versus risk reduction, cost versus business value, early security design versus late remediation, and centralized control versus clear shared accountability. These are useful decision axes, not a prescribed scoring system.
6. Offer a secure route to the business goal
Security guidance is more actionable when it includes feasible alternatives, their costs, timing, and residual risks. Hoak advises: “Instead of leading with ‘no,’ lead with ‘How do we get there securely,’” The aim is to make security part of delivering the business outcome rather than treating it as a separate veto.
7. Protect candid board reporting
Agree how the CISO will communicate material risks, what the CIO can do to improve clarity, and how the CISO will retain appropriate access to the board. A useful review should make the message understandable without changing the substance the board needs to evaluate.
When to treat the pattern as urgent
Repeated information withholding, suppression of material board risk, or a persistent inability to resolve high-impact exposure can impair oversight and operations. Marnie Wilking, CSO at Booking.com, captures the operational stakes: “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.” If those patterns continue despite direct discussion, the executives may need a structured decision process with the CEO or another appropriate executive sponsor.
Recommended Free Tools
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.
