Despite sitting side by side in the organizational chart and seemingly having the same objectives, security and compliance teams can operate in ways that are worlds apart. While both teams want your organization to have a resilient environment that supports secure business operations, their processes and priorities can put them at odds.
For instance, compliance requires security teams to follow structured procedures and document processes for audit readiness. But because security prioritizes speed and flexibility in responding to emerging threats, they may view compliance requirements as time-consuming and restrictive. Despite these different focuses, however, an organization’s risk management depends on aligning security and compliance around the same business goals.
Key Takeaways
- Security and compliance teams often operate with conflicting objectives and processes, causing organizational tension.
- Compliance focuses on structured procedures and documentation, while security prioritizes speed and flexibility in threat response.
- Misalignment between the two leads to risks such as coverage gaps, duplicated workflows, and increased exposure to data breaches.
- GRC leaders can bridge this gap by building shared workflows, centralizing data, investing in integrated GRC technology, and fostering a culture of collaboration.
- Closing the gap improves organizational risk management, enhancing collaboration and overall security posture.
Table of Contents
Two Teams, Two Different Mindsets
The tension between security and compliance departments often starts with how each team defines its job. Your compliance team is built around structure, concerned with:
- Documentation
- Audit trails
- Meeting regulatory deadlines
- Demonstrating adherence to information security standards
On the other hand, security teams’ priorities tend to be speed and rapid response to cyber threats. Your team wants the flexibility to adapt to a quickly shifting attack surface and protect information assets in real time.
However, neither team can be sufficient on its own. Stopping at meeting minimum requirements to pass audits or meet regulatory compliance is generally not enough. Instead, compliance should be the starting point for building a more mature risk management program. On the other hand, if your security department doesn’t share incident feedback with the compliance team, the same mistakes are likely to recur because controls never change.
Yet cross-functional coordination is rare. According to a 2025 KPMG report, while 48% of organizations have centralized risk and resilience structures, only 26% have strong collaboration and a holistic, cross-functional view of risks.
Causes of the Divide Between Compliance and IT Security Teams
Several structural factors keep security and compliance departments from working together. Here are some common reasons the two teams operate at cross-purposes.
Different Definitions of Success
Compliance teams are under pressure to demonstrate compliance with changing regulatory standards. According to a 2025 PwC survey, 85% of organizations report that compliance requirements have become more complex since 2022. As a result, most compliance teams are inclined to measure success through audit and regulatory adherence.
On the flip side, security teams are trying to keep pace with the increasing frequency and severity of cyberattacks. IBM’s 2025 Cost of Data Breach report estimates the cost of a data breach at $4.4 million, with organizations that shorten the breach lifecycle saving $1.9 million in breach costs. As such, most security teams measure success by how quickly they can detect and respond to threats.
When the success metrics don’t overlap, security and compliance teams might start optimizing for different outcomes.
Siloed Tools and Data
Most organizations run separate platforms for cybersecurity operations and compliance reporting. IBM reports that enterprises juggle an average of 83 security solutions from 29 different vendors, while governance, risk and compliance (GRC) often operates on separate platforms. Each team works from a different view of the same organizational risk, making coordination slow and error-prone.
Conflicting Timelines
Compliance requirements often follow audit cycles. Even when there are compliance changes, regulatory bodies usually offer advance notices and clear timelines for adoption.
Meanwhile, cyberthreats require real-time responses. The longer your security team waits to respond, the greater the potential damage and exposure. Such different operating rhythms can create friction if you don’t intentionally coordinate them.
Language Barriers
Compliance teams usually communicate in terms of regulatory frameworks and controls. The language centers on audit requirements and control checks for frameworks such as ISO, SOC 2, GDPR, HIPAA or the NIST Cybersecurity Framework (NIST CSF). While your security team can be broadly familiar with these frameworks, they may not focus on such compliance terminology when discussing risks.
Security teams’ language, in contrast, is usually rooted in operational defense. They talk about:
- Threat vectors
- Attack surfaces
- Vulnerability scores
- Exposure levels
When compliance describes a gap in ‘access control documentation’ and security identifies the same issue as an ‘identity and access management vulnerability,’ they may not recognize they’re addressing the same problem—duplicating efforts or misdirecting resources.
When teams don’t share a common language, conversations around risk management in your organization can break down. Each side describes the same organizational risk in different terms and reference points, which can lead to inconsistent prioritization and gaps in decision-making.
How the Security-Compliance Clash Creates Organizational Risk
When your security and compliance teams aren’t on the same page, risk can show up everywhere. For example, 62% of IT teams say working from different data sources slows security response times, while 35% report that it weakens the organization’s security posture, according to a 2025 Ivanti survey. Beyond slower response times and a weaker security posture, a security-compliance disconnect can create other organizational risks:
- Coverage gaps emerge when neither the security nor the compliance team assumes ownership of overlapping responsibilities.
- Duplicated workflows waste resources as both teams independently assess the same IT policies and risks.
- Data breach exposure increases when inconsistent security practices expose confidential data.
- Audit findings surprise security teams who weren’t involved in control design.
Ways GRC Leaders Can Bridge the Gap Between Security and Compliance Teams
As a GRC leader, you have several tools at your disposal to close the gap between security and compliance teams. Consider these four steps.
1. Build Shared Workflows
Identify overlapping security and compliance responsibilities, such as risk assessment, control testing, third-party risk management and incident response. Then, formalize how both teams contribute to shared workflows and outcomes to reduce duplication and create accountability that neither team can ignore.
2. Centralize Your Data
When your security and compliance teams pull from different data sources, they are more likely to reach different conclusions. Yet 55% of businesses report siloed security and IT data, resulting in reduced efficiency (40%) and reduced cross-team collaboration (37%). With a single source of truth, both teams can work from the same information when assessing and reporting on:
- Risk rating
- Control status
- Policy exceptions
- Compliance reports
Centralized data also makes it easier for your organization to produce security and compliance reports that leadership can act on.
3. Invest in Integrated GRC Technology
Many organizations use multiple security solutions from different vendors, which can create a structural barrier to collaboration while increasing potential entry points for bad actors. To connect cybersecurity operations with compliance reporting and monitoring, you can use an integrated GRC platform.
Both security and compliance teams can track risks, controls, obligations, compliance status and remediation activities in one place. Centralized visibility also shifts teams’ interactions from reactive conflict to proactive coordination.
4. Build a Culture of Collaboration
Technological and structural changes can only go so far. To build lasting alignment, take steps to inspire a cultural shift that encourages cross-departmental collaboration:
- Run an education and awareness program that helps each team understand the other’s constraints and priorities.
- Arrange cross-functional meetings that bring the security and compliance departments together to agree on shared objectives and business practices.
- Establish shared ownership of key outcomes so that both teams contribute to mutual success.
- Secure leadership buy-in that signals collaboration is expected.
Start Closing the Gap Between Security and Compliance
While the tension between the security and compliance teams is common, you can close the gap as a GRC leader. Often, the clash stems from siloed tools and a lack of shared infrastructure. At Onspring, we offer a GRC solution that brings security and compliance to a single platform. With our software, you can connect risks, controls, compliance data, audit, workflows and evidence, so both teams can share the same data and reduce manual handoffs.
Download the ebook Balancing Security and Compliance in GRC today to learn how you can improve collaboration across teams and strengthen your organization’s overall risk posture.
