What Boards need to be thinking

Why Boards Need to Think in Dollars, Not Metrics
For too long, cybersecurity metrics have been difficult for boards of directors to interpret. Metrics like “number of malware infections blocked” or “percentage of systems patched” may make sense to IT teams, but they don’t translate easily into the strategic language of risk, opportunity, and return on investment that boards use to guide company-wide decisions.

This disconnect often leaves board members with an incomplete picture of the organization’s true cyber risk exposure. Without a financial context, they might undervalue critical cybersecurity initiatives or fail to allocate sufficient resources to manage evolving threats. The result can be catastrophic: delayed investments, insufficient defenses, and ultimately higher costs when a breach occurs.

Shifting the focus from raw metrics to dollar-based risk assessments bridges this gap. For example, instead of telling the board that “the organization faces a high number of phishing attempts,” present a financial scenario: “If a successful phishing attack compromises our customer database, we could face $5 million in regulatory fines, $3 million in lost revenue, and a potential 10% drop in share price.” This approach makes the stakes immediately clear.

Dollar-based risk assessments also enable better decision-making. With a financial perspective, boards can weigh the costs of additional cybersecurity measures against the potential savings from avoiding a major incident. They can also prioritize investments based on which risks carry the highest financial impact. Over time, this leads to more targeted, efficient use of resources and greater overall resilience.

In today’s threat landscape, financial clarity is a must. By presenting cybersecurity risk in terms that align with the board’s priorities—dollars and business outcomes—organizations can gain stronger buy-in, more robust funding, and a more secure future.