Certified: The ISACA CGEIT Audio Course

In this episode, we focus on a problem that causes governance to fail even when the policies are well written and the intentions are good: people do not follow what they do not understand, and they do not support what feels irrelevant to their daily work. Beginners often picture governance as a set of rules that leaders approve and everyone else simply obeys, but real organizations are made of humans with competing priorities, limited time, and different levels of technical comfort. If governance is communicated as abstract language about alignment and oversight, it becomes background noise, and teams will treat it like paperwork. When governance is communicated as practical guidance that helps people make decisions, avoid mistakes, and move faster with less rework, it becomes something teams can actually use. Communication and awareness are the bridge between a governance model on paper and governance behavior in real life. The goal here is to learn how to create communication that makes governance feel concrete, usable, and connected to outcomes that different stakeholders care about. When you get this right, governance stops feeling like a distant committee and starts feeling like a shared operating system for how the organization makes choices.

Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.

To make governance practical, you first need clarity about what you are trying to communicate, because vague messages create vague behavior. Governance communication should answer basic questions people carry, even if they do not ask them out loud: what decisions does governance affect, who is responsible, what is required, what is optional, and what happens if we ignore it. A common mistake is to communicate governance as principles without translating them into action, such as saying we value security and compliance, but never explaining how that should change daily choices. Another mistake is to communicate only at the executive level, assuming that cascades automatically to teams, when in reality messages often get diluted or misunderstood. Making governance practical means communicating at multiple levels with consistent meaning, so leaders understand tradeoffs, managers understand expectations, and teams understand how to proceed without guessing. This also means choosing language that fits the audience, avoiding jargon for beginners and non-technical groups, while still being precise enough to guide decisions. A practical message is one that someone can use to decide what to do next, not one that merely describes ideals. When communication is designed with usability in mind, it naturally increases awareness because people see immediate relevance.

Awareness is not simply knowing that governance exists, because awareness that does not change behavior is just noise. Real awareness means people can recognize when governance applies and can take the right action without being coached every time. For example, teams should know when an initiative needs review, what artifacts or information are expected, and how decisions will be made. Leaders should know what questions to ask, such as how an initiative aligns with enterprise direction, what risks it introduces, and how value will be measured. If awareness is weak, teams may either avoid governance entirely or over-escalate everything because they are unsure, both of which create inefficiency. The purpose of awareness-building is to reduce uncertainty, because uncertainty slows decisions and encourages workarounds. Beginners can think of this like learning the rules of a new environment, where you move confidently once you understand what is expected and what boundaries exist. In governance, confidence is a major productivity factor because it reduces second-guessing and late-stage rework. Effective awareness also reduces conflict because people see governance as predictable rather than arbitrary.

One of the most powerful ways to make governance practical is to connect it directly to consequences people already experience. Instead of describing governance as alignment, you can describe it as the reason projects avoid duplication, avoid security incidents, and avoid costly rework. Instead of saying governance ensures compliance, you can describe how consistent rules prevent emergencies when audits happen or when regulators ask questions. Instead of saying governance supports strategic outcomes, you can describe how prioritization prevents overload and reduces the number of half-finished initiatives. These connections turn governance from an abstract concept into a tool for reducing pain. Beginners often learn best when they see cause and effect, so governance communication should explain how specific behaviors produce specific benefits. This also helps reduce skepticism, because many people have seen governance used as a way to slow things down without adding value. If communication highlights practical wins, such as faster approvals due to clear guardrails or smoother delivery due to fewer conflicting systems, people begin to see governance as an enabler. The key is to talk about outcomes in plain language and tie them to recognizable experiences.

Another essential ingredient is consistency, because governance becomes abstract when messages change depending on who is speaking or which department is involved. If one group is told governance is strict and another group is told it is flexible, trust erodes quickly. Practical governance communication uses consistent definitions, consistent expectations, and consistent decision logic, even when individual outcomes differ. For example, you can consistently explain that decisions are based on value, risk, and constraints, and then show how that logic applies to different initiatives. Consistency also means communicating the same concepts using the same terms, so people do not have to translate between competing vocabularies. Beginners can think of this as learning a set of rules that stay the same each time you play, because changing rules mid-game makes the game feel unfair. When governance communication is consistent, people feel safer engaging with it because they can predict how decisions will be made. That predictability is what turns governance into a practical process rather than a mysterious authority.

Governance communication also needs to be timely, because messages delivered too late feel like punishment rather than guidance. If a team builds an entire solution and then governance appears at the end with objections, governance looks like an obstacle even if the objections are valid. Practical governance communication front-loads expectations, so teams know early what guardrails exist and what reviews are required. This includes communicating what good looks like before work begins, rather than only criticizing after decisions are made. It also includes communicating upcoming changes, such as new standards or new decision processes, with enough lead time for teams to adapt. Beginners often underestimate how much change can disrupt work, so good communication reduces surprise and makes adoption smoother. Timely communication also supports speed, because early clarity allows teams to design within constraints rather than redesign later. When communication is embedded in the planning rhythm and in the lifecycle of initiatives, governance becomes part of how work is done, not a late interruption.

It is also crucial to choose communication channels and formats that match how people actually absorb information. A long policy document may be necessary as a reference, but most people will not read it unless they have to, and even then they will skim. Practical communication often includes short, repeated messages that reinforce key points, combined with clear reference materials for deeper detail. Awareness is built through repetition and reinforcement, not through a single announcement. Beginners can think of this like learning a language, where you need repeated exposure before patterns become natural. In governance, repetition does not mean repeating the same speech; it means consistently revisiting key concepts in different contexts so people internalize them. It also helps to communicate through trusted intermediaries, such as managers or champions, because people pay attention to sources they trust. When governance relies only on central announcements, it can feel distant and easy to ignore. When governance is communicated through the same pathways people use for normal work coordination, it becomes part of the operational environment.

A practical approach to governance communication also includes making responsibilities visible, because confusion about ownership is one of the biggest reasons governance feels abstract. People need to know who decides what, who provides input, and who is accountable for outcomes. If governance is presented as a faceless committee, teams will not know how to engage, and they will default to avoidance or escalation. Communication should clarify decision rights in simple terms, like which types of initiatives require review, which groups must be consulted, and how conflicts are resolved. This does not require complex organizational charts; it requires clear statements about roles and expectations. Beginners benefit from knowing who to talk to and what to expect, because it reduces anxiety and delays. Clear responsibility communication also supports fairness, because it reduces the perception that decisions depend on personal relationships. When roles are clear, governance feels like a system, not like a personality.

Another key idea is that governance communication should be framed as support, not surveillance, because tone shapes adoption. If communication sounds like policing, teams will hide problems and avoid engagement, which creates risk. If communication sounds like guidance and partnership, teams will bring questions early, which prevents mistakes. This does not mean governance should be soft or vague; it means governance should be firm but constructive, focusing on how to succeed within guardrails. A practical tone acknowledges that teams are trying to deliver outcomes and that governance exists to help those outcomes be sustainable and safe. It also means being honest about tradeoffs, because pretending there are no tradeoffs makes people distrust the message. For beginners, it helps to hear that governance is about making choices explicit and aligning people around them, not about making everyone happy. When communication is respectful and grounded in shared goals, it becomes easier for people to accept constraints. Over time, this builds a culture where governance is seen as part of professional practice rather than an external imposition.

Communication and awareness should also include feedback loops, because governance becomes abstract when it is one-way. If people cannot ask questions, raise concerns, or propose improvements, they will treat governance as untouchable and irrelevant. Feedback loops allow governance to learn where rules are confusing, where processes are slow, and where guardrails are too rigid or too loose. They also help identify where awareness is weak, such as when teams repeatedly make the same mistakes or misunderstand the same requirement. Beginners sometimes assume governance is fixed, but effective governance evolves based on evidence and experience. Communication should make it clear that governance listens and adapts, while still maintaining consistency in core principles. This makes adoption easier because people feel they have agency and can influence how governance works. Feedback loops also improve quality because governance decisions become more informed by operational reality.

As we close, the main lesson is that governance is only as practical as the communication that surrounds it and the awareness that grows from that communication. To make governance usable, messages must be clear about what decisions are affected, consistent across the organization, timely in the lifecycle of work, and framed in outcome language people recognize. Awareness must move beyond knowing governance exists to knowing how to engage with it, who owns what, and what actions are expected. When communication treats governance as support rather than surveillance, teams are more likely to bring questions early, which increases speed and reduces late-stage surprises. When communication includes feedback loops, governance can improve and stay aligned with real work rather than drifting into abstract theory. For brand-new learners, the simplest takeaway is that governance is not a document, it is a behavior pattern, and behavior changes when people understand what to do and why it matters. Communication and awareness are how governance becomes part of everyday decision-making instead of a distant concept that people only remember during audits or crises. That is why building practical communication is not optional, it is one of the core levers that makes governance real.