Certified: The ISACA CDPSE Audio Course

In this episode, we’re going to focus on a skill that determines whether a privacy program stays stuck at basic compliance or evolves into something stronger and more resilient: advocating for maturity improvements. Privacy maturity means how well an organization can consistently protect personal information and honor privacy commitments over time, even as systems change, teams grow, and new risks appear. Improving maturity is not just adding more policies; it is building better habits, clearer ownership, stronger controls, and better evidence that those controls work. Aligned to organizational objectives means you are not arguing for privacy in a vacuum; you are connecting privacy improvements to the goals leaders already care about, such as trust, growth, operational stability, and risk reduction. For brand-new learners, the key idea is that organizations rarely change because privacy is morally correct, even when it is; they change because the improvement supports their mission and reduces problems that threaten success. Advocacy in this context is not selling or manipulation; it is the discipline of making the case clearly, using credible evidence, and proposing improvements that are feasible and valuable. Task 17 is about learning to move privacy forward by speaking to what the organization is trying to achieve.

Start by understanding what maturity looks like in everyday terms, because maturity can sound like a vague score rather than a practical reality. A low-maturity environment often relies on individual heroics, where a few people remember to do privacy reviews, but processes are inconsistent and undocumented. A higher-maturity environment has repeatable routines, clear ownership, and systems designed to support privacy by default, so good outcomes do not depend on who happens to be on the team that week. Higher maturity also means the organization can answer basic questions quickly, like where personal information is stored, who has access, and how deletion works, because its inventory and controls are reliable. Another maturity signal is how the organization responds to change, such as a new law or a new vendor, because mature programs adapt smoothly rather than scrambling. Maturity is not about perfection; it is about predictability, defensibility, and continuous improvement. When you advocate for maturity improvements, you are advocating for a more predictable and less crisis-driven way of operating.

Advocacy begins with identifying what the organization’s objectives truly are, because alignment requires you to connect privacy improvements to something leaders already prioritize. Objectives might include expanding to new markets, accelerating product releases, increasing customer trust, reducing operational incidents, or strengthening compliance posture for enterprise customers. Privacy improvements can support these objectives, but the link must be clear and credible. For example, if the objective is growth, privacy maturity can reduce friction caused by confusing consent experiences or public backlash. If the objective is speed, privacy maturity can reduce late-stage rework by embedding privacy into design gates early. If the objective is reliability, privacy maturity can reduce incidents and reduce recovery time by improving data inventories and access controls. If the objective is winning large customers, privacy maturity can provide evidence and assurance that meets customer due diligence expectations. Beginners should understand that alignment is not about twisting privacy into any objective; it is about showing that privacy maturity can be a practical enabler of objectives when designed thoughtfully.

To make a maturity case persuasive, you need evidence of current state and evidence of pain, because leaders fund improvements when they see real problems or real risk. Evidence can include metrics like delays in rights request processing, recurring incidents involving personal information, increasing vendor oversight gaps, or growing volumes of retained data past retention windows. Evidence can also include operational pain, like teams complaining about unclear processes, repeated project delays due to last-minute privacy reviews, or inconsistent handling of customer questions. A helpful approach is to translate pain into business terms, such as the cost of rework, the risk of enforcement, the likelihood of customer churn, or the operational burden of manual processes. Evidence does not need to be dramatic; it needs to be credible and connected to a pattern that maturity improvements can address. When you can show that a maturity gap is causing repeated friction, your advocacy moves from theoretical to practical. Leaders trust patterns more than one-off anecdotes because patterns suggest systemic issues that will continue unless addressed.

Once you understand objectives and current pain, advocacy becomes proposing specific improvements that match the organization’s maturity needs. One common improvement is strengthening data inventory and dataflow processes, because without a reliable map, almost every privacy task becomes slow and uncertain. Another improvement is integrating privacy review into existing workflows, so teams consider minimization and purpose early rather than at the end. Another is improving classification and control mapping, so sensitive data receives stronger safeguards and handling is consistent across teams. Another is strengthening vendor governance, including evidence-based monitoring, because vendor risk is a major source of privacy exposure. Another is improving retention and deletion controls, because reducing stored data reduces risk and improves the ability to honor rights. Another is strengthening incident response integration so privacy impact is assessed quickly and communications are consistent. Advocacy should not present improvements as a laundry list; it should propose a small set of changes that deliver meaningful risk reduction and operational benefit. The strongest proposals show that improvement is achievable and that success can be measured.

A core advocacy skill is framing maturity improvements as investments that reduce future costs, because leaders often resist spending on prevention when they are not feeling immediate pain. Privacy failures can be expensive in direct ways, such as regulatory penalties and legal costs, but they are also expensive in indirect ways, such as trust damage, customer churn, and internal rework. Maturity improvements often reduce hidden costs like duplicated work, repeated audits, and time spent chasing data across systems during incidents. For example, investing in a durable data inventory process can reduce the cost of every rights request and every incident investigation because teams can find information quickly. Investing in clear procedures can reduce support errors and reduce inconsistent customer experiences that lead to complaints. Investing in retention automation can reduce the data footprint and lower breach impact if an incident occurs. When you connect improvements to cost avoidance and operational efficiency, leaders are more likely to support them because the benefits fit their language. This is why Task 17 emphasizes alignment: mature privacy programs often succeed by showing they help the organization operate better, not just comply.

Another important part of advocacy is addressing feasibility and tradeoffs honestly, because leaders distrust proposals that ignore constraints. Feasibility includes technical capability, staffing, timeline, and organizational readiness. Some improvements require system changes that cannot happen overnight, especially in legacy environments, so the proposal should include phased steps and mitigations that reduce risk while longer-term work is underway. Tradeoffs should be acknowledged, such as a minimization change that might reduce certain analytics precision, or a stronger access control that might slow some workflows until processes adapt. Honest tradeoff discussion builds trust because it shows the privacy advocate understands the business reality and is not asking for idealized perfection. It also helps leaders make informed decisions about where to accept risk temporarily and where to invest to reduce it. Advocacy becomes more effective when it includes options, such as a minimal viable improvement path and a stronger maturity path, each with clear consequences. Even as a beginner, you can understand that trust grows when privacy proposals sound realistic and grounded.

Sustaining maturity improvements requires governance and accountability, which means advocacy should include how changes will be maintained after implementation. A new process will fail if ownership is unclear or if no one measures whether it is being followed. A new control will drift if changes are not monitored and if exceptions become common. Advocacy therefore includes proposing roles, responsibilities, and metrics that prove the improvement is operating. It also includes integrating the improvement into normal management routines, such as regular reviews of retention compliance, vendor evidence checks, or project intake processes. This is where the language of leaders matters again, because leaders respond to accountability structures they recognize, like owners, deadlines, and performance indicators. When advocacy includes a maintenance plan, leaders see the improvement as a sustainable change rather than a temporary project. Sustainable change is what maturity means in practice: the organization improves and stays improved as conditions change.

Advocacy also includes shaping culture, but culture changes best when it is supported by systems that reward desired behavior. If the organization says privacy matters but rewards teams only for speed, then privacy will be bypassed. Mature programs advocate for aligning incentives, such as making privacy review a standard part of project completion or making data minimization a quality requirement. Culture also changes when people understand the why, which is why education and clear communication support maturity, but education works best when procedures and tools make the right behavior easy. Advocacy should therefore include both the human side, like training and communication, and the structural side, like workflow integration and ownership. For beginners, it is important to see culture as something influenced by decisions about process and measurement, not only by speeches. When privacy becomes part of how success is defined, people treat it as real.

As we close, remember that Task 17 is about moving privacy from a reactive compliance posture to a stronger maturity posture by advocating for improvements in a way that fits organizational goals. Privacy maturity means predictable processes, clear ownership, strong controls, and evidence that those controls work over time. Advocacy becomes effective when you understand organizational objectives, gather credible evidence of current pain and risk, and propose targeted improvements that deliver measurable benefit. Strong proposals translate privacy benefits into leadership language like risk reduction, operational stability, customer trust, and cost avoidance, while acknowledging constraints and tradeoffs honestly. Sustained maturity requires governance, accountability, and metrics so improvements do not decay. When you learn to advocate this way, privacy becomes a program that grows stronger instead of a program that constantly scrambles, and the organization becomes better equipped to protect people while achieving its mission.