At least they care enough to ask. Four members of the Federal Financial Institutions Council—the Office the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the National Credit Union Administration—want to know if financial institutions find the Council's cybersecurity assessment tool too burdensome.

It's not an altogether odd question, as organizations deploying their own cybersecurity tools and procedures in response to increased regulatory pressures have discovered.

“If the security solution makes usability untenable, then it's not really a solution because people will bypass it,” said Behnam Dayanim, a partner at Paul Hastings.

Ideally, a cyber solution will fit organically into the systems that employees are already using. According to Dayanim, user compliance begins to drop off once extra steps are introduced into the process.

The issue is more prevalent in some industries than others. Dayanim noted that employees working in the financial services sector might be more accustomed to working in the shadow of heavy regulation and engaging with restrictive IT on a daily basis.

But there is a limit to how much disruption an organization can take. “When you implement policies, standards and procedures which enhance privacy and security, it can absolutely impact functionality,” said Phyllis Sumner, head of the privacy and security practice at King & Spalding.

She's seen this happen inside law firms too, where the need to obtain information quickly has to be counterbalanced against privacy and security concerns. When consulting with clients outside of the firm, Sumner said attorneys need to take creative approaches to problems rather than creating additional obstacles to a company's operations or falling back on the word “no.”

Occasionally there's not a compromise or creative alternative to be found, and companies decide to accept a risk rather than adopt a measure that could hinder business. Those instances can be compiled into a risk register that can be tracked on an ongoing basis.

“Those risks can change, so part of the process should be to review that risk register on a regular basis and revise policies and procedures or other issues relating to technology as the [regulatory] landscape changes,” Sumner said.

The areas where companies do decide to implement new cybersecurity protocols or tools need to be treated with care. Success can have less to do with the hardware involved than the people.

Andrew Konia, a partner and chair of the Data Privacy and Security team at McGuireWoods, pointed out that asking employees in an organization to take on additional responsibilities that will not be reflected in their paycheck is inherently a tough sell. And the truth is that they really need to buy it.

“They need to be engaged. This is a critical function. It's critical to the health of the company, it's critical to the success of a company,” Konia said.

While it's perhaps not the sexiest cyber solution on the block, a consistent message backed by clearly delineated responsibilities and regular checkups can work wonders. Once timetables and expectations have been established, it's easier to hold people accountable.

In some cases, otherwise strong workers are being asked to perform cyber-related functions that exist outside of their preexisting skillset. Without proper training, intimidation can become a handy excuse not to engage with risk protocols.

“These people are undertaking sometimes a very new task to them. They need support, they need some guidance, they need to feel the love,” said Konia.