In a security breach, the perspective of whose responsible is shifting…

securityThe implications of boards holding Chief Executive Officers accountable for breaches will be something to watch. Recently a survey of 200 public companies shows that corporate boards are now concerned about cybersecurity and willing to hold top executives accountable.

Since the board (and the CEO that they put in place) is ultimately responsible for the results of the company, making the CEO responsible shouldn’t be a surprise.  A security breach is just one example of a business risk. not just a “technical issue,” so it should be treated in a similar fashion.  There are roles like the CISOs, CIOs, CROs that may support the CEO in their efforts to steer the ship, but if the organization runs aground, the highest levels of corporate leadership need to be held accountable — just like they are rewarded for improved corporate performance. Neither scenario is accomplished by the CEO alone.

A data breach can impact customer confidence, stock price, and the company’s reputation for a long time and those are not “technical issues.” Unfortunately, it is not a matter of “if” but “when” a security incident will occur so a formal effort must be expended to anticipate, detect, develop contingency plans to limit, and correct the situation when it occurs, as quickly and effectively as possible, reducing the impact on the customers as well as the organization itself.

That is likely one reason why in job postings today there are an abundance of openings in the security space.

Advertisements

The shepherd, their flock and leadership

sheep and shepherdOne of the areas I generally talk about is the value of diversity. Diversity of perspective, experience, and expertise… are all contributors to the rapid creation of innovative solutions. This is based in the value of the individual.

In a discussion about teams with someone, he pointed out that teams are about leadership and common goals, not about the differences. His example was a flock of sheep. Its value is not the differentiation of its members but the strength in numbers, unity and action.

But the sheep don’t choose the shepherd the shepherd chooses the sheep. That is where leadership (and interviewing for that matter) comes into play – shaping where the herd is going.

Granted all models are wrong, but some are useful. This whole view of life I found thought provoking. We need to look at problems and issues from many perspectives and actively choose our path and not just get carried along with the herd — unless we’re all going to the same place.

This is true in the financial markets (and how stocks are valued) as well as organizations and life.

Automation and leadership

automation2One topic that has been getting people excited over the last few years is that robots are going to replace many jobs or make some jobs much more boring. That is not even touching on the whole autonomous robot rebellion crowd’s concerns (I posted about an AI risks related podcast on NPR just last week).

Robotics is taking important roles ranging from milking cows, to working in kitchens, to logistics and order fulfillment. Now they are taking on more important functions in our business processes that used to be the domain of knowledge workers (even though it is happening slowly).

I do believe that the increased use of automation should shift how enterprises architects think about the enterprise and how that environment is structured. Automation is just another enterprise resource that needs to be defined, understood and optimized. The leaders are going to have to include these possibilities in their thought processes too.

These changes are inevitable. That got me thinking about a post that McKinsey put out about beating the transformation odds – after all automation efforts will be a transformation. Most of the article focused on the need for executive vision, clarity and communications. It also discussed the need for continuous improvement as part of the plan. Too often teams and breathe a sense of relief once a project is deployed, when in reality that is just point where it was given birth and now needs to develop and mature. Automation efforts are no exception.

Transformation is hard work, and the changes made during the transformation process must be sustained for the organization to keep improving.