Certified: The ISACA CGEIT Audio Course

When organizations struggle with risk, the problem is often not that they lack good intentions, but that the expectations for safe, consistent behavior are unclear, unrealistic, or poorly communicated. For brand-new learners, it can be tempting to picture a policy as a formal document that sits on a shelf until an auditor arrives, and to picture standards as even more technical rules that only specialists understand. In governance, policies and standards are supposed to function like guardrails on a road, because they make it easier for people to move quickly without falling into dangerous patterns. A guardrail only helps if drivers can see it, understand it, and trust that it reflects the real shape of the road. Developing and communicating risk policies and standards people can follow means designing expectations that fit how work actually happens, translating risk goals into clear behaviors, and creating a communication approach that makes adherence feel normal rather than burdensome.

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.

A policy is a statement of intent and direction, explaining what the enterprise expects and why that expectation matters to objectives such as reliability, trust, and legal obligations. A standard is a more specific set of requirements that makes the policy enforceable and measurable, so the enterprise can tell whether it is actually living by its policy rather than just claiming it does. The two must be connected, because a policy without standards is often too vague to guide daily decisions, while standards without policy can feel arbitrary and disconnected from purpose. Beginners sometimes assume the more detailed the standard, the safer the enterprise, but detail can backfire if it is impossible to follow consistently. The point of a policy is to set a clear direction that leaders will enforce, and the point of a standard is to convert that direction into practical, repeatable expectations. When you keep this relationship clear, you avoid the common problem where documents multiply while behavior stays the same.

Good policy development starts with outcomes, not with rules, because people follow rules more consistently when they understand what the rules are protecting. If the enterprise outcome is maintaining customer trust, policies should make it clear that protecting sensitive information and maintaining reliable services are not optional preferences but essential commitments. If the outcome is meeting regulatory obligations, the policy should explain that consistent evidence, controlled access, and documented decision paths protect the enterprise’s ability to operate. This does not require legal language; it requires plain language that tells people what matters and why it matters. When policy is written as a list of prohibitions without purpose, people treat it as a barrier and look for ways around it. When policy is written as a direction linked to enterprise outcomes, people can make better local decisions because they can align their choices to the purpose, not just to the letter of the rule.

Policies and standards must also be designed to fit enterprise complexity and maturity, because an expectation that works in one environment can be unrealistic in another. A smaller organization may not have specialized roles for every control area, so a policy that assumes multiple approvals, complex reporting layers, and constant formal reviews may create paralysis. A large enterprise may need more structure and clearer thresholds because it has many services and business units, and inconsistent local rules can create major blind spots. Fit does not mean lowering expectations to the point of meaninglessness; it means choosing expectations that the enterprise can execute reliably, then strengthening them as maturity grows. A useful way to think about this is that a policy should establish stable behavior, while standards should evolve as the enterprise builds stronger capabilities. When policies and standards are designed with fit in mind, they become tools that improve decision quality rather than burdens that teams quietly ignore.

To make policies and standards followable, the enterprise must translate risk concepts into specific behaviors and decision points that match real workflows. If a policy says access must be authorized, a standard should clarify what authorized means in practice, such as who can approve, what evidence is required, and what review timing is expected. If a policy says changes must be controlled, a standard should clarify what changes require stricter oversight, what constitutes an emergency, and what documentation must exist after the change. This is not about turning the episode into a configuration guide; it is about understanding that followable standards are behavior-based, not slogan-based. People cannot follow concepts like be secure or be compliant, because those concepts do not tell them what to do when faced with real tradeoffs. Followable standards give people a clear path to do the right thing even when they are busy, because the standard defines the minimum acceptable behavior in a way that can be applied consistently.

Clarity depends heavily on definitions, because a standard that uses ambiguous words creates confusion and inconsistency. Terms like sensitive, critical, timely, and approved sound reasonable but can mean different things to different teams unless the enterprise defines them. For example, critical might be defined by customer impact, revenue dependence, safety relevance, or legal obligations, and different definitions produce different decisions. A mature approach defines key terms in simple language, provides examples that match enterprise reality, and aligns those definitions with how the enterprise classifies services and data. This is not about making a dictionary for its own sake; it is about preventing accidental non-adherence caused by misunderstanding. When definitions are stable, the enterprise can measure adherence more fairly, because teams are being evaluated against the same meaning. It also reduces conflict, because people spend less time arguing about what the standard meant and more time deciding how to meet it.

Another reason policies fail is that they are often written as if people have unlimited time, unlimited staffing, and perfect information, which is rarely true. Followable standards acknowledge operational pressure and provide pathways for when normal processes cannot be followed, such as time-limited exceptions or emergency procedures with defined follow-up requirements. This is where governance credibility is built, because people will follow rules they believe were designed by someone who understands reality. If a standard creates impossible delays for urgent work, teams will bypass it, and then the enterprise loses visibility and control. If the standard includes a realistic exception path with clear ownership, time limits, and compensating measures, teams can stay within governance even during stress. A followable standard does not pretend emergencies never happen; it designs for them so that the enterprise can respond quickly without abandoning accountability. Over time, this approach reduces risk because it prevents the creation of hidden workarounds that become permanent exposure.

Communication is as important as writing, because even a well-designed policy will fail if people do not know it exists, do not know where it applies, or cannot remember what it expects in the moment of decision. Communicating policy effectively means choosing channels and formats that match how people actually learn and work. A long policy document might be necessary as a reference, but people also need short, clear summaries that translate policy into the few decisions they make most often. They need consistent messaging from leadership that reinforces why these expectations matter, and they need practical guidance from managers who help them apply the rules in context. Communication should also include repetition over time, because one announcement does not create habit. Beginners sometimes think communication is a single training session, but governance communication is ongoing because teams change, systems change, and people forget. When communication is treated as a continuous activity, adherence becomes more consistent because the policy stays present in the culture.

To communicate without creating resentment, the enterprise must frame policies and standards as protections for outcomes people value, not as obstacles created by distant authorities. That framing works best when it acknowledges tradeoffs honestly, such as the fact that stronger controls can add friction, but uncontrolled work creates incidents, rework, and reputational damage that cost far more. When leaders explain that policies exist to protect customer trust, maintain reliability, and keep the enterprise legally safe, people can see the policy as part of professional quality rather than as arbitrary bureaucracy. The enterprise should also communicate how success will be measured, because followable standards include measurable expectations, and measurement is what keeps rules from becoming optional. Measurement should not be presented as surveillance; it should be presented as feedback that shows where the system is drifting and where help is needed. When communication focuses on shared outcomes and honest measurement, people are more likely to cooperate because they understand the purpose and the rules feel fair.

A critical part of making policies followable is aligning them to roles, because people need to know what is expected of them specifically, not what is expected of the enterprise in abstract terms. A developer, an administrator, a service owner, a business process owner, and an executive sponsor all interact with risk in different ways, and standards should clarify responsibilities without making everyone responsible for everything. This is where governance avoids the trap of shared accountability becoming unclear accountability. Role clarity can be communicated through examples of decisions each role makes, such as approving access, prioritizing remediation work, accepting residual risk, or escalating issues that exceed tolerance. When roles are clear, people can act confidently, because they know they are operating within their authority. Clear roles also make enforcement more consistent, because leaders can see whether expectations are being met at the appropriate level rather than blaming frontline staff for decisions that required leadership tradeoffs.

Standards must also be enforceable in a way that supports improvement rather than fear, because fear-based enforcement creates hiding behavior. If people believe admitting a deviation will lead to punishment, they will conceal deviations, and concealed deviations are where risk accumulates until it becomes a major incident. A better governance approach uses enforcement to protect boundaries while also encouraging transparency, such as requiring that deviations be documented and time-limited, and responding with support and remediation rather than with blame. This does not mean there are no consequences for repeated neglect; it means consequences are tied to behavior and accountability, not to honest reporting of problems. Enforceable standards often include escalation thresholds, so leaders know when a pattern of non-adherence has become an enterprise concern. When enforcement is consistent, people trust the system, and that trust makes adherence more likely because people see that rules are applied fairly across teams and time.

Monitoring and reporting are the practical mechanisms that connect policy communication to real behavior, because they show whether standards are being followed and where drift is occurring. A followable standard is one that can be monitored without excessive effort and without constant interpretation disputes. Monitoring should focus on high-impact expectations, such as timely reviews, controlled changes for critical services, and controlled exception handling, because those areas often drive major exposure. Reporting should be designed for action, showing trends, showing whether performance is within tolerance, and identifying where support or investment is needed. When monitoring reveals gaps, the enterprise should respond with improvements that make adherence easier, such as simplifying workflows, clarifying approvals, or addressing resource constraints that cause shortcuts. This is how governance stays practical, because it treats non-adherence as a signal about the system, not just as a personal failure. Over time, monitoring and response create a feedback loop that strengthens both the standards and the enterprise’s ability to follow them.

Consistency across the enterprise matters because policies lose credibility when different groups are allowed to follow different rules without clear justification. This does not mean the enterprise cannot adapt standards based on criticality or maturity; it means those adaptations must be explicit and governed. For example, a critical customer service may have tighter standards than a low-impact internal tool, but that difference should be based on defined classification, not on who argues more effectively. Similarly, a newer business unit may be on a staged maturity path, but exceptions should be visible and time-limited so the enterprise knows what exposure it is carrying. Consistency also depends on using the same definitions and measurement methods across units, because inconsistent measurement undermines comparability and invites political debates. When policies and standards are consistent in their core expectations, the enterprise can scale governance without constant renegotiation. That scalability is one of the main reasons to have enterprise-wide policies in the first place.

A useful way to see policy development and communication as a governance activity is to recognize that policies must be integrated into how investments and changes are approved, not treated as separate documents. If an investment proposal ignores risk policy requirements, it will either be delayed later or it will proceed with hidden exposure. If a change program ignores standards, it will create inconsistent controls that are expensive to fix later. Integrating policies into decision processes means risk expectations are considered early, and teams can design solutions that meet standards without last-minute friction. This is where policies become part of the enterprise’s operating system, because they influence planning, prioritization, and design choices. It also makes communication easier, because teams encounter policy expectations naturally in the flow of work rather than as an external interruption. When policies are embedded into governance routines, adherence becomes more consistent, and compliance becomes more sustainable because evidence and control points are produced as normal outputs of operations.

To make this concrete, imagine an enterprise policy that states customer data must be protected and that access to critical systems must be controlled and reviewed. A followable standard would specify who can approve access, how often reviews occur, what evidence must be retained, and what happens when a review is overdue. Communication would include a clear explanation that this protects customer trust and reduces incident impact, plus a simple reminder of the few decisions people make most often, like how to request access properly and how managers should approve. Monitoring would track whether reviews happen on time, whether exceptions are growing, and whether unresolved access issues correlate with incident patterns. If monitoring shows that teams are falling behind, leadership might simplify the approval workflow, adjust resourcing, or clarify responsibilities, rather than pretending the standard is being followed. Over time, the enterprise builds a culture where the policy is not a distant document but a daily practice that supports outcomes and reduces uncertainty.

As we conclude, developing and communicating risk policies and standards people can follow means designing expectations that are clear, realistic, role-aligned, and tied directly to enterprise outcomes like trust, reliability, and legal resilience. Policies provide direction and purpose, while standards provide specific, measurable requirements that can be applied consistently across the enterprise. Followable standards include clear definitions, practical exception pathways, and enforcement that encourages transparency and improvement rather than fear and hiding. Communication is continuous and multi-layered, combining leadership reinforcement with practical guidance that people can remember at decision time. Monitoring and reporting then close the loop by revealing adherence trends and driving system improvements that make compliance easier and more sustainable. If you remember one guiding idea, let it be that a policy only protects the enterprise when it changes daily behavior, and daily behavior changes most reliably when the standard is practical, the purpose is clear, and the communication makes the right choice feel straightforward even under pressure.