Your executive team gets it. They've approved the budget, they mention security in board meetings, they understand the stakes. You're not fighting for recognition at the top anymore.

But then you look at what's actually happening three levels down. The marketing team is sharing credentials to social media accounts. Sales is pushing back on MFA because it adds seconds to their login process. Developers are storing API keys in public repositories because it's faster than the approved method. Remote employees are working from unsecured networks and don't think twice about it.

The executive commitment is there. The company-wide behavior isn't. And that gap is where breaches happen.

This is the challenge that keeps security leaders up at night. You have the mandate from above, but translating that into thousands of daily decisions made by people who have completely different priorities is a different game entirely.

The Real Problem Isn't Awareness

Here's what makes this frustrating: your people aren't unaware. They've been through the training. They've seen the emails. They know security matters in theory.

But knowing something matters and actually changing behavior are worlds apart. Everyone knows they should exercise regularly, eat better, and get more sleep. Knowing doesn't drive behavior. Something else does.

Your employees are making rational decisions based on their immediate reality. They have deadlines, performance metrics, and workflows that were built before security was as critical as it is now. When security adds friction to their day, they're not being malicious or careless. They're optimizing for what they're measured on.

The person sharing login credentials isn't trying to create a vulnerability. They're trying to get a campaign launched on time. The developer using an easier but less secure method isn't ignoring your policies out of spite. They're trying to ship features while the product team is breathing down their neck about timelines.

Your distributed workforce makes this exponentially more complex. People working from home offices, coffee shops, or co-working spaces don't have the ambient security awareness that comes from being in a corporate environment. There's no one looking over their shoulder, no visual reminders, no colleagues modeling secure behavior right next to them.

Why Executive Buy-In Alone Isn't Enough

You already have what most security leaders are fighting for. Leadership that understands security, approves investments, and gives you a seat at the table. That's not nothing.

But executive support operates at 30,000 feet. It sets direction and allocates resources. It doesn't change how someone in customer support handles a password reset request, or whether an engineer uses a personal device to check production logs during an incident at midnight.

The gap between strategic priority and tactical execution is where security culture lives or dies. And bridging that gap requires something different than what got you executive buy-in in the first place.

At the executive level, you speak about risk, compliance, and business impact. That language works there. But three levels down, people care about different things. Getting their work done efficiently. Meeting their team's goals. Not looking incompetent in front of colleagues. Not being the bottleneck that slows everyone else down.

Security has to make sense in their world, not just in the C-suite's world.

Making Security Relevant to People Who Aren't Thinking About Security

‍

The shift that changes everything is making security relevant to the actual problems people face in their day-to-day work. Not abstract threats, but concrete impacts on things they already care about.

For customer-facing teams, security becomes about trust and reputation. The connection isn't "we might get breached," it's "customers are asking about our security practices before signing contracts, and this is how we answer those questions confidently."

For product teams, security becomes about speed and quality. Not "we need to slow down and add security reviews," but "building security in from the start means we avoid the costly retrofits that delay launches and create technical debt."

For operations teams, security becomes about stability and reliability. Not "here's another policy to follow," but "these practices prevent the 2am incidents that ruin everyone's weekend."

This isn't spinning or manipulating. It's translating. Every security practice exists for a reason that ultimately connects to business value. Your job is making that connection explicit and relevant to each audience.

Distributed Teams Need Distributed Culture

Your remote and distributed workforce creates a unique challenge. Security culture in a physical office has natural reinforcement mechanisms. People see others following protocols, they have casual conversations that reinforce norms, they feel part of an organizational culture just by being present.

Remote workers don't have that ambient cultural pressure. They're making decisions in isolation, often at odd hours, without the social reinforcement that shapes behavior in physical spaces.

Building security culture across distributed teams means being intentional about things that used to happen organically. You need explicit communication where you used to have implicit modeling. You need structured touchpoints where you used to have hallway conversations. You need to create presence and connection through other means.

This looks like regular security updates that are actually worth reading, not just policy reminders. It means creating channels where people can ask security questions without feeling like they're admitting ignorance. It means making security leadership visible and accessible even when people never see you in person.

The teams that do this well make security feel present without being oppressive. People know where to go when they have questions. They understand the reasoning behind policies. They see security as a resource that helps them do their jobs better, not a constraint that makes everything harder.

The Friction Problem

Every security control you implement creates friction. Sometimes that friction is necessary and worth it. Sometimes it's unnecessary and counterproductive. The difference matters enormously.

When secure behavior requires significantly more effort than insecure behavior, people will find workarounds. This isn't a character flaw. It's human nature. We all take the path of least resistance when we're under pressure and trying to get things done.

Your job isn't to eliminate all friction. Some friction is the point. But you need to be ruthless about eliminating unnecessary friction and making the necessary friction as minimal as possible.

This means constantly asking: what's the actual security value we're getting from this control, and what's the real cost in terms of time, frustration, and workflow disruption? Sometimes the answer is that the security value easily justifies the friction. Sometimes you discover you're creating massive workflow disruptions for marginal security gains.

The controls that create the most resentment are often the ones where the security value isn't obvious to the people experiencing the friction. When people understand why something matters and how it protects them or the business, they're far more willing to accept reasonable friction.

Building Champions Where Culture Actually Lives

Security culture doesn't spread from the top down through org charts and policy documents. It spreads laterally through influence and example.

‍

‍

You need people embedded in every team who understand security well enough to make it relevant to their colleagues, and who understand their colleagues well enough to communicate effectively. These aren't security professionals. They're trusted members of other teams who become bridges between security and daily work.

The key is that these champions need to be people their colleagues actually listen to. Not necessarily the most senior people, but the ones with credibility and influence in their groups. The engineer everyone goes to for advice. The account manager who's been around forever and knows how things really work. The project manager who somehow makes everything run smoother.

These people can answer questions in the moment, explain the reasoning behind policies in terms their team understands, and provide feedback to you about what's actually happening on the ground versus what you think is happening.

For distributed teams, this becomes even more critical. You need people in different locations, time zones, and contexts who can make security feel local and relevant rather than something mandated from a central office somewhere.

The Long Game

Building security culture is not a project with a completion date. It's an ongoing process of reinforcement, adjustment, and evolution. The organization changes, threats change, technology changes, and your approach needs to change with it.

What works is consistency over time. Regular communication that people actually pay attention to because it's useful and relevant. Visible leadership commitment that goes beyond statements and shows up in decisions and behaviors. Recognition and reinforcement when people do security well, not just consequences when they don't.

You're trying to shift defaults and create new norms. That happens gradually through accumulated small changes, not dramatic one-time initiatives. Every interaction someone has with security either reinforces the culture you're building or undermines it.

The question isn't whether you can transform your entire organization's security behavior overnight. You can't. The question is whether you can make consistent progress over time by making security relevant, reducing unnecessary friction, and building bridges between security priorities and operational realities.

What Changes Now

You have executive support. That's your foundation. Now the work is extending that support into the daily decisions happening throughout your organization.

Start by identifying where the biggest gaps exist between policy and practice. Not to punish, but to understand. Where are people finding workarounds? Where are security controls being ignored or circumvented? Those are your signals about where friction is too high or relevance is too low.

Then pick the highest-impact gaps and work backward. What would make secure behavior easier or more relevant in that context? What would make people in that role or team actually care about this particular security practice?

Sometimes the answer is better tools. Sometimes it's clearer communication. Sometimes it's rethinking the policy entirely because you're creating massive friction for minimal security value.

But the common thread is making security make sense to people who aren't thinking about security all day. Meeting them where they are, speaking to what they care about, and making it possible for them to do the right thing without heroic effort.

Your executives are on board. Now you need everyone else to be on board too. Not because they're forced to comply, but because security becomes part of how they think about their work.

That's the culture shift that actually sticks.

‍