For years, cybersecurity has struggled to manage “the human factor” with the same rigour applied to technical risk. While organisations have frameworks for vulnerability management, incident response, and governance, the human dimension has often remained abstract – addressed through training, awareness campaigns, or post-incident blame.

This fragmented approach is no longer tenable. Human error in cybersecurity is rarely random; it follows discernible patterns shaped by system design, organisational culture, and cognitive bias. A formal Human Risk Framework (HRF) provides the missing architecture – a systematic method to interpret, classify, and mitigate human-related cyber incidents.

For CISOs, adopting such a framework is not an academic exercise. It is a pragmatic step toward managing human behaviour with the same analytical discipline as any other risk vector.

From Blame to Understanding: The Rationale for a Human Risk Framework

Most post-incident reviews still start with the question, “Who clicked?” rather than “Why did the system make it easy to click?” This focus on individual culpability prevents organisations from learning and adapting.

Root Cause Analysis (RCA) – a methodology long used in safety-critical sectors – reveals that human error is typically the final symptom of deeper latent conditions: poor usability, policy overload, unclear accountability, or inadequate communication. Translating RCA principles into cybersecurity enables organisations to move beyond anecdotal blame toward structural insight.

The Human Risk Framework operationalises this shift by providing a taxonomy of error types, contextual factors, and mitigation strategies. It enables CISOs to classify incidents not merely by outcome (e.g., phishing, data loss) but by underlying driver (e.g., cognitive overload, policy conflict, or cultural silence).

This diagnostic clarity transforms human error from an unpredictable variable into a manageable risk domain.

Principles of the Human Risk Framework

1.     Contextual analysis over blame attribution. Every human action occurs within a system. Investigations must focus on the interplay between individual, task, and environment.

2.     Proportionality of response. Different error types (slip, lapse, mistake, violation) require different interventions – from design change to coaching to accountability.

3.     Learning orientation. The framework prioritises feedback loops and near-miss reporting to identify precursors before harm occurs.

4.     Integration with enterprise risk management (ERM). Human risk is not an isolated domain; it intersects with operational, compliance, and reputational risk categories.

5.     Ethical governance. Interventions must respect privacy, autonomy, and fairness to sustain trust – the foundation of any human-centred security strategy.

Together, these principles enable security leaders to transform human error data into actionable organisational intelligence.

Classifying Human Error: From Mistakes to Violations

Drawing on models such as Reason’s (1990) Generic Error-Modelling System (GEMS), the HRF categorises human errors in cybersecurity contexts as follows:

·      Slips and lapses: Unintentional actions caused by attention or memory failure (e.g., sending data to the wrong recipient).
Mitigation: interface redesign, confirmation prompts, and workload management.

·      Mistakes: Incorrect decisions resulting from knowledge gaps or misjudged situations (e.g., misinterpreting a phishing email).
Mitigation: targeted education, decision support tools, and improved situational feedback.

·      Violations: Deliberate deviations from policy, often driven by conflicting incentives or poor usability (e.g., using personal devices to meet deadlines).
Mitigation: address systemic causes, redesign processes, and realign incentives rather than relying solely on discipline.

This classification allows CISOs to allocate resources proportionately. Not every incident warrants retraining or punishment; often, the more effective solution lies in engineering or process change.

Integrating Human Risk into the Enterprise Risk Landscape

To be effective, human risk must be treated as a strategic risk domain, not a behaviour anomaly. Integration with ERM frameworks such as ISO 31000 or NIST RMF enables consistent measurement and reporting.

A mature HRF incorporates three dimensions of control:

1.     Preventive controls – usability-by-design, automation, and workload management to reduce error likelihood.

2.     Detective controls – behavioural analytics and near-miss reporting mechanisms to identify risk precursors.

3.     Corrective controls – post-incident learning processes that adapt systems and culture rather than assign blame.

By embedding these dimensions within existing governance structures, CISOs can translate human behaviour into quantifiable risk metrics: frequency of policy deviations, root cause distributions, time-to-detection of near-misses, and employee trust indices.

This creates a feedback loop where behavioural data informs both control design and cultural development – closing the gap between awareness and action.

Operationalising the Framework: A CISO’s Roadmap

Implementing a Human Risk Framework requires more than a new policy; it demands a shift in mindset and capability. The following phased roadmap aligns with your research findings:

1.     Diagnose the current state.
Conduct a baseline assessment of human risk maturity: how incidents are recorded, analysed, and acted upon. Identify cultural or procedural bottlenecks (e.g., punitive response models, under-reporting).

2.     Define taxonomy and metrics.
Develop a standardised classification of human error types and contextual factors. Establish KPIs that measure behavioural improvement (e.g., reduction in repeat errors, increase in near-miss reports).

3.     Embed cross-functional governance.
Form a Human Risk Committee bringing together HR, IT, Legal, and Compliance to oversee ethical data use, culture measurement, and learning initiatives.

4.     Deploy data-informed learning loops.
Integrate behavioural analytics with qualitative insight from post-incident reviews. Translate findings into design or policy improvements.

5.     Sustain through culture and leadership.
Reinforce learning culture principles – psychological safety, proportional accountability, and transparency. Publicly celebrate lessons learned to normalise continuous improvement.

These stages mirror the maturity path observed in other risk disciplines – from reactive to proactive to predictive management.

Ethical and Psychological Considerations

Human risk management is uniquely sensitive because it deals with people’s behaviour, cognition, and trust. Therefore, ethical governance must be embedded at every layer.

• Transparency: Employees must know what behavioural data is collected and why.
• Proportionality: Interventions should balance risk reduction with personal dignity and privacy.
• Fairness: Systems must distinguish between human fallibility and negligence.

Ethical governance is not a compliance issue – it is a credibility issue. Without it, even the most advanced HRF will be undermined by suspicion and resistance.

From Reactive Security to Resilient Systems

The ultimate goal of a Human Risk Framework is not to eliminate human error – an impossible task – but to reduce its frequency, mitigate its impact, and convert every incident into learning.

Resilient organisations share three characteristics:

1.     Anticipation: They identify emerging human risk patterns before incidents occur.

2.     Adaptation: They evolve controls and culture based on data and feedback.

3.     Absorption: When incidents do occur, they recover swiftly, with minimal disruption.

This aligns directly with Safety-II thinking – focusing on why things go right as much as why they go wrong. In cybersecurity, this means analysing the thousands of daily secure decisions employees make successfully, not just the occasional failure.

A mature HRF transforms those silent successes into structured insight, ensuring that resilience is engineered, not improvised.

Conclusion: Building the Architecture of Human Resilience

Cybersecurity’s human dimension has long been treated as a problem to be managed. The Human Risk Framework reframes it as a system to be understood, measured, and improved.

For CISOs, this blueprint offers both structure and strategy. It replaces anecdote with analysis, blame with learning, and reactive control with continuous adaptation. Most importantly, it recognises that human performance is not peripheral to cyber resilience – it is its foundation.

As technology evolves and threat actors exploit ever more subtle psychological levers, the organisations that will endure are those that can learn, adapt, and trust their people. The Human Risk Framework provides the scaffolding for that transformation – guiding security leaders to engineer systems where humans are not liabilities, but the architects of resilience itself.

Are you ready to translate this into measurable outcomes across your organisation? Speak with our advisors about a tailored roadmap. Contact us today.

‍