Leadership & Executive Communication
,
Professional Certifications & Continuous Training
,
Training & Security Leadership
How to Deal With Having Influence Without Authority in Cybersecurity Roles
In some cybersecurity organizations, expertise and visible leadership don’t reside in the same role. Usually, the person with the most influence on cybersecurity decisions is the owner, but it does not always work out that way. Fortunately, there are things you can do to change that for your career.
See Also: On-Demand | NYDFS MFA Compliance: Real-World Solutions for Financial Institutions
A technical professional may be relied on to answer the hardest questions, while someone else in the organization carries the title, platform and the authority to make a final decision. This arrangement is not universal, nor is it always intentional, but it develops organically through communication styles, organizational structure and internal politics.
When it is designed well, this dynamic can be effective. When left unexamined, it can quietly stall careers. The difference is not talent; it is structure.
How This Dynamic Takes Shape
Most professionals do not step into this situation knowingly. It emerges through a series of reasonable decisions that accumulate over time. One person demonstrates an ability to communicate clearly with executives or external audiences. Another earns trust through precision, depth and reliability under pressure. As demands increase, roles narrow. The visible leader becomes the default spokesperson. The expert becomes the escalation point.
Neither role is inherently subordinate. Both roles are critical. The problem appears when authority and accountability begin to diverge without acknowledgment.
How to Recognize It Early
This dynamic is easiest to see through behavior rather than titles. You may be in it if you notice patterns such as being asked to explain or defend decisions after they have already been made, being invited into reviews but not planning conversations, or being introduced as the technical authority while someone else is framed as owning the function.
Another signal is asymmetry in expectations. You are expected to be precise and defensible, while someone else is allowed to be persuasive and directional. These signals are subtle, but they matter because they shape how leadership is perceived long before promotions are discussed.
Healthy Versus Unhealthy Versions
It is important to distinguish between functional role differentiation and structural misalignment. In a healthy version, the technical expert is involved early, decision ownership is explicit, and the visible leader reinforces the expert’s authority publicly. Risk acceptance is deliberate, documented, and shared. Visibility and credibility work together.
In an unhealthy version, the expert is brought in only when scrutiny increases. Risk acceptance happens informally or retroactively. Accountability flows downward, while authority flows upward. Over time, the expert becomes indispensable but boxed in. The issue is not visibility itself. It is the absence of shared ownership.
Influence Is Not the Same as Accountability
This distinction is where careers stall. Influence means people listen to you. Accountability means your name is attached to the outcome. Influence can feel empowering until something goes wrong. Accountability without authority is where professionals absorb risk without gaining standing.
Cybersecurity is particularly vulnerable to this imbalance because expertise is often treated as advisory, even when it materially shapes outcomes. If you are expected to answer for decisions, you should also be positioned to help make them. It is okay to be your own advocate and respectfully say so.
What to Do If You Are Already There
If you recognize yourself in this role, the goal is not to displace the visible leader. It is to realign responsibility. That starts with clarity around three questions:
- Who formally owns security decisions?
- Who has the authority to accept or reject risk?
- Who represents those decisions when they are challenged?
Rebalancing does not require confrontation, but it does require specificity. Decision rights, escalation paths, and documentation matter. When expertise is central to outcomes, authority should be visible somewhere in the structure, whether through reporting lines, governance roles, or formal sign-off responsibility. Without that clarity, even prestigious roles can become career-limiting.
How to Prevent It in the First Place
Earlier in a career, prevention is about intentional positioning rather than visibility for its own sake. Seek roles and opportunities where your expertise is tied to recommendations, trade-offs, and decisions, not just explanations. Pay attention to how you are introduced and when you are invited into conversations. Titles matter, but patterns matter more. Who speaks first? Who summarizes decisions? Who is accountable when plans change? These signals accumulate quietly, and they shape how leadership potential is assessed.
Narrative Ownership Matters
One of the least discussed aspects of leadership progression is narrative ownership. Who tells the story of why decisions were made? Who explains trade-offs? Who frames success and failure?
Careers accelerate when technical professionals participate in shaping that narrative, not just validating it. That does not require becoming the public face, but it does require being part of how decisions are described and defended.
A Grounded Career Question
Being the technical expert in a cybersecurity organization is powerful. It becomes limiting only when expertise is disconnected from authority. So ask yourself: When risk is accepted, whose judgment does that acceptance reflect? And when those decisions are questioned later, whose credibility is on the line? If the answers are not the same person, it is worth addressing that misalignment before it quietly defines your role for you.
In these situations, careers stall not because organizations sideline experts deliberately, but because misalignment goes unexamined for too long. The professionals who progress are the ones who ensure their knowledge is formally linked to ownership. That is not about ego. It is about sustainability and forward progression in your career.