CISM Information Security Program Practice Question
A security program lacks executive support. What is the best strategy to gain support?
⚠ Common exam trap
ISACA CISM tests the misconception that technical demonstrations or fear-based tactics (like regulatory threats) are more effective than business-aligned communication, when in reality, executives require risk expressed in financial terms to justify resource allocation.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Show risk quantification in business terms
C is correct because executive stakeholders prioritize business outcomes over technical details. By quantifying risks in financial terms (e.g., potential loss exposure, ROI of mitigation), the security manager aligns with the organization's strategic language, making the case for investment compelling and actionable. This approach directly addresses the root cause—lack of perceived business value—rather than relying on technical arguments or fear.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Hire a security consultant to advise
Why it's wrong here
A consultant delivers recommendations but cannot supply the ongoing ownership and accountability executives must demonstrate; sponsorship is built through alignment with business objectives. Consultants are tempting because they provide external expertise, which suits specialist assessments rather than securing lasting executive commitment.
- ✗
Implement quick-win security improvements
Why it's wrong here
Quick wins demonstrate value but do not by themselves secure executive sponsorship; sustained support requires aligning security with business strategy and reporting meaningful risk metrics. Quick wins are tempting because they build momentum and visibility, which suits early programme credibility rather than obtaining executive commitment.
- ✓
Show risk quantification in business terms
Why this is correct
Quantifying risk in financial and business-impact terms translates security exposure into language executives already use for investment decisions, making the programme's value and consequences concrete. This directly addresses the missing executive support by aligning security with business objectives.
- ✗
Threaten regulatory fines for non-compliance
Why it's wrong here
Regulatory fines may exist, but threatening executives damages trust and does not create genuine ownership of security outcomes; support is earned by linking security to business objectives. Citing compliance penalties is tempting because regulations are mandatory, yet fear-based pressure rarely produces sustained sponsorship.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
Courseiva writes every CISM question from scratch — 924 in total, each with an explanation and a wrong-answer breakdown. None are copied from real exams or dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This CISM practice question is part of Courseiva's free ISACA certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the CISM exam.