There’s a quiet pattern in the corporate world that rarely makes headlines—but it’s costing companies far more than they realize.

Chief Global Security Officers (CGSOs) don’t tend to stick around. Not because they’re ineffective. Not because they aren’t needed. However, many companies are unsure how to handle them once the urgency subsides.

Too often, the CGSO is brought in as a reactive measure triggered not only by risk events like insider threats or reputational breaches, but by broader pressure points: shareholder concerns, geopolitical instability, regulatory scrutiny, or leadership’s growing awareness that “security” now has board-level visibility. The organization aligns around a concept of what security should look like, and resources are suddenly allocated to build a visible program. A new CGSO is brought in often to embody that concept more than to challenge or reframe it. The mandate is to “make it real”—quickly.

But fast-forward 18 to 36 months, and that same security leader is quietly exiting the organization. Why?

“It’s not about competence, it’s about conditions.”

The Real Issue Isn’t the Role. It’s the Readiness.

Most organizations lack a clear understanding of how security integrates into their overall business strategy. They might assign a broad mandate, encompassing risk reduction, travel safety, executive protection, and workplace violence prevention, but often stop short of aligning that work with how decisions are made, how budgets are shaped, or how culture is reinforced.

In some cases, the CGSO doesn’t even have a clear reporting structure. They’re layered under legal, HR, or facilities, with dotted lines and vague authority. And when push comes to shove, their insights don’t always carry the weight they should.

Eventually, the disconnect becomes too wide, and another talented leader walks out the door, often with a quiet NDA in their rearview.

Let’s Talk About the ‘Former Fed’ Assumption—Carefully.

It’s common and understandable for organizations to look to federal law enforcement when hiring security leadership. Many candidates come with impressive credentials, exceptional integrity, and experience handling high-pressure threats.

But private sector security leadership is a different arena. Success in this space requires business acumen, cultural awareness, and a deep understanding of enterprise operations.

Most federal hires enter these roles post-retirement, having spent their careers in structured, mission-driven environments with clear authority and defined processes. While their leadership may have been exemplary in that context, the operational nuances of the private sector, from aligning with brand protection strategies to navigating budget politics, interdepartmental tensions, and decentralized global teams, are rarely experienced firsthand before taking the top job.

When someone transitions directly into a Chief Security Officer seat without walking in the shoes of a subordinate or middle manager within the private sector, those critical nuances are often missed. And what gets lost in the translation? Influence, integration, and credibility with key internal stakeholders.

To complicate matters further, some view the private sector role as a bridge, a way to round out a résumé before launching into consulting or board service. That intent isn’t inherently wrong. But if the goal is personal career positioning more than building a sustainable program, the organization may invest heavily in talent and infrastructure without realizing lasting benefit.

This isn’t about background, it’s about fit, readiness, and intent. And without the proper structure and support, even competent individuals can find themselves boxed in, misaligned, or quietly cycled out before the impact is ever made.

“The private sector runs on influence, integration, and accountability, not authority.”

We don’t need fewer federal backgrounds; we need better alignment, clearer expectations, and an honest understanding of what success in the private sector requires.

When Optics Take Priority Over Outcomes.

There’s another dynamic that often goes unspoken:

Sometimes, the person making the hiring decision is under pressure to show bold leadership, especially following a significant incident or public scrutiny. The instinct is to go big, hire someone with a recognizable background, issue an internal memo, maybe even do a media push or town hall to introduce the “new face of security.”

Suddenly, the persona of the hire becomes the program.

“The persona of the hire becomes the program.”

But while that individual may be decorated, capable, and highly respected in their prior field, that doesn’t mean the conditions for success exist, or that their background matches the business need.

In these cases, the organization doubles down to protect the image. The role becomes untouchable. Honest assessments get diluted. Fundamental gaps are papered over to preserve reputational capital tied to the hire. And all the while, costs are accumulating—staffing layers, tech investment, travel, support teams—without any measurable increase in resilience or performance.

This isn’t about fault. It’s about false confidence.

Security leadership isn’t about making the right hire for a press release. It’s about creating an environment that enables the hire to succeed in reality, not just in narrative.

What often follows is a second wave of disruption.

With pressure to show immediate results, new leaders, especially those elevated through internal or external fanfare, may begin making changes quickly to demonstrate impact.

In doing so, they sometimes restructure teams, abandon legacy protocols, or remove key people before fully understanding what’s working. The urgency to deliver wins can override the discipline of observation.

And the result? Operational friction, knowledge loss, and yet another program reset dressed up as progress.

“What looks like leadership in motion is often a reset in disguise.”

And Here’s Where It Hurts: The Hidden Cost of Short-Term Security Thinking.

Every time an organization hires a new CGSO, it often builds a stack of roles and positions beneath them: analysts, support personnel, regional managers, intelligence leads—all under the banner of a revitalized security program.

But if the strategy isn’t sustainable, if the leadership alignment isn’t there, and if the integration with the business isn’t real, those positions become noise, not impact.

Onboarding costs, salaries, benefits, travel budgets, vendor contracts, and tech stack investments all pile up quickly. And yet, no measurable improvement in readiness or resiliency is realized.

You’ve spent real money. You’ve created internal dependence. But you haven’t built capability. You’ve just changed the faces on the org chart.

This is more than inefficiency—it’s a form of corporate risk in itself.

You Don’t Need a Better Security Officer. You Need a Better Environment for One to Succeed.

The most effective security leaders aren’t just guards against threats; they’re leadership advisors. They identify gaps in operational resilience, help shape response structures, and often anticipate organizational fractures before they escalate into crises.

But they can only do that if they’re invited to the real table, not the kids’ table with a courtesy title.

If You’ve Gone Through More Than One CGSO in the Past 5 Years, It’s Worth Asking:

• Was the role ever truly defined?
• Were they empowered or just expected to clean up risk quietly?
• Was their work integrated into business planning, or treated like a side task?
• Were they set up to lead or just expected to respond?
• And what did we really build that’s still standing now?

What’s at Stake Isn’t Just a Position. It’s Institutional Memory and Operational Continuity.

Security touches everything, from travel to workforce stability, executive visibility, vendor risk, legal exposure, crisis response, and public image. When you lose your top security leader, you’re not just losing a title; you’re resetting your entire posture.

And in today’s threat landscape, you don’t always get a second chance.

Want to Build a Program That Lasts?

That’s where we come in.

We help organizations move beyond episodic security leadership and into sustainable, well-aligned programs that fit the realities of modern enterprise. Our work integrates, not duplicates, your internal capabilities. And we leave behind more than a folder. We leave behind resilience.

Because security should be a value, not just a reaction.

“Security should be a value, not just a reaction.”

Let’s start the conversation.